Re: [vwrap] one question

[Crista Lopes <[e-mail]>]

On 9/24/2010 1:46 PM, Hurliman, John wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
>> Of Crista Lopes
>> Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 1:40 PM
>> To: [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [vwrap] one question
>>
>> On 9/24/2010 1:32 PM, Hurliman, John wrote:
>>      
>>> For the case of your client talking to your virtual world, you don't
>>> have to follow any standards at all. That is completely outside the
>>> scope of VWRAP and no one is going to say "your client is using AJAX
>>> to fetch assets instead of the VWRAP standard, you're not VWRAP
>>> compliant!". But if you want your virtual world servers to
>>> interoperate with other clients that are written by other people (and
>>> may not be written in Javascript at all) you need to expose
>>> VWRAP-compliant endpoints on your servers that follow very precise
>>> specs. Does that clear up the possible disconnect we're having?
>>>
>>>        
>> I think the disconnect is not on this conversation, as I completely agree with
>> you. The disconnect is on things that are written on the drafts.
>>
>>      
> But the drafts don't apply to the case of your own client connecting to your own server using your own protocol. They don't (or shouldn't, if they do) even attempt to address that because it's way outside the interop conversation. The charter and drafts should only be talking about how you can expose precisely defined endpoints to allow auth/asset retrieval/teleporting (and more down the road) from other clients or servers that also understand the VWRAP spec. To use the OpenID or OAuth example, supporting OpenID logins on your blog does not preclude you from also supporting your own non-standard user registration and auth system. From an engineering standpoint, it's a thing tacked on to the side of your system to allow interop with other systems, it doesn't define your core architecture. If the charter or drafts are stating otherwise, please point out exactly which phrases in which paragraphs are doing so because they need to be corrected before VWRAP will go anywhere.
>
>    
I already did on my initial review.
Let me give an example with as much detail as I can fit in 5 minutes.

My student  is working on a JavaScript viewer for OpenSim. He is going 
to make a bunch of decisions about how the browser gets the assets. 
These decisions are noone's business. I think we agree.

Now, you go and develop another Javascript viewer for OpenSim. You are 
going to make a bunch of decisions about how the browser gets the 
assets, and those decisions are completely different from my student's.

Now, I point my browser to my student's world, I login, and I get the 
content. Great. Next I want to go from my student's world to yours, so 
some UI happens, and I go to your world using my web browser. I also get 
the content, as I get your JavaScript. In terms of interop, your world 
just needs to know who I am (a user of my student's world), and how to 
get the assets related to my avatar. The way that your JavaScript 
program makes the assets of your world come to my browser when I visit 
doesn't need to be the same as the way that my student's JavaScript 
program makes the assets of his world come to my browser when I visited.

Next step: dahlia is developing a Unity3D browser plugin for OpenSim. I 
want to go from your world to dhalia's world. So some UI happens, and I 
go to her world. I need to download the Unity3D web plugin, if I don't 
have it already, and once is installed I also get the content in 
whichever way dahlia's code makes them come the way of my browser. Her 
world should know who I am, and how to get my assets.

These are all independently-operated worlds with radically different 
ways of placing the assets in my machine. And yet I ought to be able to 
visit them all while they know who I am and how to render my avatar.

Is this clear?