Re: [vwrap] Consensus? What exactly should be in the protocol

[Dan Olivares <[e-mail]>]

I thought the JavaScript portion of this discussion was out of scope.

A client is a client whether it's implemented in JavaScript in a web browser
or if it's implemented as a native application running on a machine.   A
browser+javascript based client isn't more relevant then any other client in
technical terms.

A server can serve a javascript application that then makes use of what we
decide here.
It isn't necessary to assume that it always will be a web browser +
javascript application to produce an effective standard.

Regards

Dan



On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 4:45 PM, Meadhbh Hamrick <[e-mail]>wrote;wrote:

> um. since when is UDP a "web technology"?
>
> also, the javascript server you have running in your browser, if
> you're behind a NATted firewall, doesn't that require you to
> manipulate your firewall to route a public port/address to your
> browser?
>
> --
> meadhbh hamrick * it's pronounced "maeve"
> @OhMeadhbh * http://meadhbh.org/ * [e-mail]
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 1:38 PM,  <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > I also have a game server that uses TCP/UDP that runs from my server, to
> > handle the object synchronization.  My point is I am using what all are
> > considered web technologies.
> >
> > I was more making the point, why even say it is a web app or not.  As
> long
> > the exposed behavior of my system supports the protocols and formats that
> > are needed it can interact with other systems.
> >
> > And the URL is the web page that the world is hosted on.  And I had 300+
> > avatars walking around in this web page.
> >
> > K.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Meadhbh Hamrick [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 4:26 PM
> > To: [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: [vwrap] Consensus? What exactly should be in the protocol
> >
> > also. how many other people are connected to your javascript virtual
> > region simulator running in your browser?
> >
> > what URL do you give them to connect to it?
> >
> > --
> > meadhbh hamrick * it's pronounced "maeve"
> > @OhMeadhbh * http://meadhbh.org/ * [e-mail]
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 1:19 PM,  <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >> Why is virtual world not a web app?  My virtual world runs in a browser
> > and
> >> can talk to my webserver.
> >>
> >> K.
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
> Of
> >> Meadhbh Hamrick
> >> Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 3:37 PM
> >> To: [e-mail]
> >> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> >> Subject: Re: [vwrap] Consensus? What exactly should be in the protocol
> >>
> >> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 11:59 AM, Cristina Videira Lopes
> >> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>> Cristina Videira Lopes wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> You can dictate that. But then this will be completely irrelevant in a
> >>>> couple of years when WebGL is actually usable or when Google finishes
> >> their
> >>>> virtual machine for running safe native code on browsers.
> >>>
> >>> ...or when server-side streaming goes mainstream, and being in a
> virtual
> >>> world is as simple as running a video player plus a few
> JavaScript/native
> >>> back channels to the server.
> >>>
> >>> First point is: according to the Web principles, each web application
> >>> controls 100% what and how the client gets via this really powerful
> >> concept
> >>> of hypermedia. It is unlikely that the world is going to adopt a
> standard
> >>> that forces implementers to take several steps back on this kind of
> >>> autonomy. The diversity is what gives service providers an edge.
> >>
> >> hold on there! you just gave two completely opposing examples. if i
> >> have a video player that's receiving raster lines from a distant game
> >> server, that's TOTALLY the opposite of a client having complete
> >> control over it's hypermedia input. if i simply started streaming an
> >> OnLive session of someone doing SecondLife in a flash based video
> >> player, there's absolutely no way to guarantee that the data used to
> >> create the scene would be available to the client.
> >>
> >>> The second point is: when we have all that variety of viewer
> >> implementations
> >>> that are all equally accepted by the web browser, we are still to cope
> >> with
> >>> portability of user agent simulation state between those worlds -- and
> >>> that's the bottom line for interoperability of virtual worlds on the
> Web.
> >>> I'm interested in this, because it's much more foundational than the
> >> variety
> >>> of virtual world implementation options.
> >>
> >> also... the virtual world is not a web application.
> >>
> >> if you look at typical web apps, the mashing up is usually done at the
> >> server side, turned into HTML and then sent to the browser.
> >>
> >> we're starting to see a lot more apps where JavaScript is used to do
> >> mashups in the client, but...
> >>
> >> VWRAP was chartered to work on server-authoritative worlds (like
> >> Second Life and OpenSim.) that means there's a lot of state in the
> >> simulator. it sounds like you want to open this state up and push its
> >> simulation to the edge of the network (and thus support
> >> co-simulation.)
> >>
> >> did i read that right? did you really just say that virtual worlds are
> >> client web apps?
> >>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> vwrap mailing list
> >>> [e-mail]
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> vwrap mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> vwrap mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
>