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

Morgaine <morgaine.dinova@googlemail.com> Wed, 22 September 2010 19:19 UTC

Return-Path: <morgaine.dinova@googlemail.com>
X-Original-To: vwrap@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: vwrap@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E436E3A6A92 for <vwrap@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 12:19:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.758
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.758 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.218, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4yPyrer3cxJD for <vwrap@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 12:19:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qy0-f172.google.com (mail-qy0-f172.google.com [209.85.216.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 683C63A69C7 for <vwrap@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 12:19:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qyk34 with SMTP id 34so208755qyk.10 for <vwrap@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 12:20:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=rIqx3yfFlGUVuLeFkM4wn/JHnkevfq3B8YKkOQa/Lrk=; b=s6Eol+TbzZL/3njDB2dgtwXZgaqzaj2RTYr8WHFmW80BqYZMTlbdGEFeVkWn3jYprs tvla2F6YzDb7mgXR1ml/eRBYlhIPN+DYt/Fv0ott0KiV1q26qKDWMN5Ya5zazrx9Nx7L YZmT6NQCkF7HBWgSWL/4Kz/sLaI5sEJaQKmM8=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=LJnmlztzklcLGUSV0MFGgYJUWjaQCnCq1U4f48pF4C2EFDj/BMEsRY5soJx9Qndstp a7z7gUrkJi+L/T79Os5D4chb3ew/z93CE/6bseoT5cbRGqlQQXfaxrZ/OERCJaY9HHjU AZ8zGi+ZE6o48vrt9tKQeSGazZlCv7YSbg81k=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.240.206 with SMTP id lb14mr479394qcb.53.1285183205672; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 12:20:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.232.69 with HTTP; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 12:20:01 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4C9A3B09.6070909@hp.com>
References: <AANLkTikMrSFbzmpY-HE=wOmJaGRRR45Qst_nqu7S8SGb@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimcQ3_1JSXHaWHi-Od4icdDQhdXg1zRCus9dBJw@mail.gmail.com> <4C9A3B09.6070909@hp.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 20:20:01 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTinyka=zMcoFDNKeou7ebp2Tbo=WiNKBgAAE3y_G@mail.gmail.com>
From: Morgaine <morgaine.dinova@googlemail.com>
To: Mike Dickson <mike.dickson@hp.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00163630f5817207f60490de0864
Cc: vwrap@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [vwrap] Definition of "Virtual World", in a protocols context
X-BeenThere: vwrap@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Virtual World Region Agent Protocol - IETF working group <vwrap.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap>, <mailto:vwrap-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/vwrap>
List-Post: <mailto:vwrap@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:vwrap-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap>, <mailto:vwrap-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 19:19:53 -0000

Yes, I agree with that totally Mike.

I'm glad that you pointed out that the client can be a provider of services
as well (or alternatively, services can be client-side, even if not part of
the client application).  I expect this to be a rather common use case ---
I've heard a lot of people state their interest in hosting their own
inventory and even asset services locally.

This deployment pattern could be very popular.


Morgaine.





==============================

On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 6:21 PM, Mike Dickson <mike.dickson@hp.com> wrote:

>  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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> vwrap mailing list
> vwrap@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>