Re: [vwrap] Definition of "Virtual World", in a protocols context

[Mike Dickson <[e-mail]>]

  On 09/22/2010 10:01 AM, Morgaine wrote:
> After a good night's sleep, I see that my definition still works, a 
> minor miracle.  :P
>
> As another indication of its robustness in the face of architectural 
> variation, I've just noticed that it applies even to virtual worlds 
> implemented as P2P.  This was more good fortune than planning, as I 
> could have accidentally mentioned servers yesterday, but didn't.  
> Focusing entirely on the client application's role in presenting the 
> perceptual mashup has paid dividends.
>
> We need that kind of flexibility because our server-side architecture 
> is going to be arbitrarily complex once it is decomposed into 
> services, so tying it down in any way would probably be a mistake.  In 
> contrast, the "client application" is a single unit from a user 
> perspective, even if implemented as an arbitrary number of concurrent 
> units in programming terms.  This probably captures most scenarios 
> that we are likely to see.
>
Well, no, the client itself could be a provider of services in a more 
distributed case.  But thats not really relevant as you suggest.   I 
guess I'm objecting to the server-side architecture comment. how the 
services we defined are implemented into a virtual world should ideally 
as flexible as possible.  The important thing to me is the service 
definitions (what messages I can send/receive) and the payload 
definitions/protocol used with the services.

Mike