Re: [vwrap] Relationship between Avatar/Agent and Asset Service?

Any number of asset services per user.

We generally frown on singletons, but a more important reason for "multiple"
is that a given provider may limit your freedom to hold items in ways that
you do not wish, so it's important that you be able to keep other stuff
disallowed by that provider elsewhere.

There are lots of other reasons for "multiple" too.  For example it is very
likely that people (power users at least) will want to set up an asset
service for backups (either local or in the cloud), which will become ever
more important as VWs contain more and more of our virtual items and backups
become crucial.

I hope that answers your question about cardinality.

Morgaine.

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

On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 4:54 PM, Izzy Alanis <izzyalanis@gmail.com> wrote:

> I mean to question the cardinality of the relationship between
> avatar/identity and asset service(s). Does an avatar only have a
> single home asset server, or can I simultaneously access assets
> provided by 3rd party asset services? Can I access "AssetServicesRUS
> (TM)" and services provided by "Acme Asset Services, LLC"? Or is my
> identity intractably linked with a particular asset service provider?
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Morgaine
> <morgaine.dinova@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > Izzy, several months ago on this list I was discussing exactly that issue
> > with Joshua, highlighting how multiple asset services being handled
> > simultaneously by regions and clients is the scalable way of achieving
> > virtual tourism of visitors from multiple separate worlds to a central
> > "tourist world".
> >
> > Those tourists each have asset services back in their home worlds or on
> 3rd
> > party asset services, and on arriving in the tourist zone the region
> needs
> > to hand out references to assets in all those remote asset services for
> the
> > clients to be able to render all the people present with their correct
> > avatars and possessions.
> >
> > So the simple answer is "No, no assumption of single asset service."
> That
> > would not be a scalable design anyway.
> >
> >
> > Morgaine.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ========================
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Izzy Alanis <izzyalanis@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Starting new thread as the previous one is becoming too unwieldily.
> >>
> >> Morgaine said:
> >> > We either have interoperability between worlds, in which an inhabitant
> >> > can travel from one world to another and take their avatar and/or
> >> > possessions with them, or else we don't have that.  It's black and
> white,
> >> > and no amount of fudging about "service level interoperability" is
> going to
> >> > overcome the lack of VW interoperability as a user would understand
> it.
> >>
> >> The world is full of shades of grey.
> >>
> >> Is there an assumption that an Avatar has/uses one (and only one?)
> >> "Asset Service" -- that I have a single repository of possessions to
> >> take? Can I have and use different asset services? Can I use multiple
> >> asset services? Can people share?
> >>
> >>  - Izzy
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> vwrap mailing list
> >> vwrap@ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap
> >
> >
>