Re: [vwrap] Consensus? What exactly should be in the protocol
Meadhbh Hamrick <ohmeadhbh@gmail.com> Wed, 22 September 2010 20:46 UTC
Return-Path: <ohmeadhbh@gmail.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 99B083A6AB7 for <vwrap@core3.amsl.com>;
Wed, 22 Sep 2010 13:46:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.832
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.832 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.767,
BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 mDh2MwdPVUjJ for
<vwrap@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 13:46:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wy0-f172.google.com (mail-wy0-f172.google.com
[74.125.82.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39F033A6814 for
<vwrap@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 13:46:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wyi11 with SMTP id 11so1023416wyi.31 for <vwrap@ietf.org>;
Wed, 22 Sep 2010 13:46:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
h=domainkey-signature:received:mime-version:received:in-reply-to
:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type
:content-transfer-encoding; bh=82RYiwVWf6v5HOMUVIDEaeJzbnyinmk+O9695nFmCyA=;
b=XIWGat/MtTtZ0Y/jznZb9L4IFYz8/qWo31EZHIvn+pT+HKUYW3EXTwiIbL4TOm4nRr
tJ+G/vVw1w1gi5zMHbXDHi4z6S7iFhzxMgqbQp99OwrMTw/DskEzW9I7jQXAHUayjN51
1hTiBoP34uLFWoJGd8qPwzMbZ73/rVgmAZ1AQ=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
b=d6Np9zw4/MIuU2Ch2gLQJrgb3KDcil10m2dPbNRxh+UcnfpBe0Uf24HZctXOMt4VyM
EQnyI0ONpcWj7A633DVq9QalrTYeyaWCcNIG3heP5RCd8yjTgXb5zlsS7npn3ZoN9eBl
ngHA6QFn5902e6k9r7BDlOQMKCPaqbwUgECxQ=
Received: by 10.216.165.16 with SMTP id d16mr684121wel.0.1285188412436;
Wed, 22 Sep 2010 13:46:52 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.170.82 with HTTP; Wed, 22 Sep 2010 13:46:32 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1A5F900B3E0343479D130F7A8DBB65E6@TWEEDY64>
References: <AANLkTinxpGRZ9PEWQx=KvaBNGBba4Z+P+SaP4N80VGV1@mail.gmail.com>
<E2109887-F5B2-4742-B4F7-1C4655A2DD8B@ics.uci.edu>
<62BFE5680C037E4DA0B0A08946C0933D012670D0C9@rrsmsx506.amr.corp.intel.com>
<4C9A070B.3070202@hp.com>
<AANLkTinVX6Uo2S+7ocdTiVfiTFa9wxM=x1Cncyi5ij86@mail.gmail.com>
<4C9A17FC.9090308@ics.uci.edu>
<OF98CA2B26.9D4927A8-ON852577A6.00572945-852577A6.0060FB5D@us.ibm.com>
<4C9A45FC.6030709@ics.uci.edu> <4C9A5226.2080601@ics.uci.edu>
<AANLkTintT3c0aeJia=jk=EYxooOjm5M8Ozbnt5KWibB0@mail.gmail.com>
<4B19233103A440D78CAD32106AF446F2@TWEEDY64>
<AANLkTimBHfDU2yAaU=+7DxqLMmymyL6oEii6u1+b830N@mail.gmail.com>
<1A5F900B3E0343479D130F7A8DBB65E6@TWEEDY64>
From: Meadhbh Hamrick <ohmeadhbh@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 13:46:32 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTik2jdMz=TO6dOSg3bMrGPdoA6+Q4d1jkGgFi=QE@mail.gmail.com>
To: kevin.tweedy@xrgrid.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: vwrap@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [vwrap] Consensus? What exactly should be in the protocol
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 20:46:38 -0000
okay. how many people are in your virtual world? -- meadhbh hamrick * it's pronounced "maeve" @OhMeadhbh * http://meadhbh.org/ * OhMeadhbh@gmail.com On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 1:43 PM, <kevin.tweedy@xrgrid.com> wrote: > I currently have psychics running on the client. But why do I even need to > have physics? That is a VWRAP requirement? > > Simulation takes place on the client. > > For or nursing virtual space, the virtual world is a standalone space that > everyone gets their unique copy from. It does allow for observers and we > can sync object and UI events to them. > > I feel we are making so many assumptions about the virtual world and how it > is implemented. I don't really understand why you are asking the question > > K. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Meadhbh Hamrick [mailto:ohmeadhbh@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 4:25 PM > To: kevin.tweedy@xrgrid.com > Subject: Re: [vwrap] Consensus? What exactly should be in the protocol > > where does physics simulation take place? > > in the client or on a server somewhere? > -- > meadhbh hamrick * it's pronounced "maeve" > @OhMeadhbh * http://meadhbh.org/ * OhMeadhbh@gmail.com > > > > On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 1:19 PM, <kevin.tweedy@xrgrid.com> 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: vwrap-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:vwrap-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of >> Meadhbh Hamrick >> Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 3:37 PM >> To: lopes@ics.uci.edu >> Cc: vwrap@ietf.org; vwrap-bounces@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [vwrap] Consensus? What exactly should be in the protocol >> >> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 11:59 AM, Cristina Videira Lopes >> <lopes@ics.uci.edu> 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 >>> vwrap@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> vwrap mailing list >> vwrap@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/vwrap >> >> > >
- [vwrap] Consensus? What exactly should be in the … Meadhbh Hamrick
- Re: [vwrap] Consensus? What exactly should be in … Dzonatas Sol
- Re: [vwrap] Consensus? What exactly should be in … Cristina Videira Lopes
- Re: [vwrap] Consensus? What exactly should be in … Hurliman, John
- Re: [vwrap] Consensus? What exactly should be in … Mike Dickson
- Re: [vwrap] Consensus? What exactly should be in … Morgaine
- Re: [vwrap] Consensus? What exactly should be in … Meadhbh Hamrick
- Re: [vwrap] Consensus? What exactly should be in … Meadhbh Hamrick
- Re: [vwrap] Consensus? What exactly should be in … Cristina Videira Lopes
- Re: [vwrap] Consensus? What exactly should be in … Morgaine
- Re: [vwrap] Consensus? What exactly should be in … Cristina Videira Lopes
- Re: [vwrap] Consensus? What exactly should be in … Morgaine
- Re: [vwrap] Consensus? What exactly should be in … Cristina Videira Lopes
- Re: [vwrap] Consensus? What exactly should be in … Meadhbh Hamrick
- Re: [vwrap] Consensus? What exactly should be in … Meadhbh Hamrick
- Re: [vwrap] Consensus? What exactly should be in … Cristina Videira Lopes
- Re: [vwrap] Consensus? What exactly should be in … Morgaine
- Re: [vwrap] Consensus? What exactly should be in … Cristina Videira Lopes
- Re: [vwrap] Consensus? What exactly should be in … Mike Dickson
- Re: [vwrap] Consensus? What exactly should be in … David W Levine
- Re: [vwrap] Consensus? What exactly should be in … kevin.tweedy
- Re: [vwrap] Consensus? What exactly should be in … Mike Dickson
- Re: [vwrap] Consensus? What exactly should be in … Meadhbh Hamrick
- Re: [vwrap] Consensus? What exactly should be in … Cristina Videira Lopes
- Re: [vwrap] Consensus? What exactly should be in … Morgaine
- Re: [vwrap] Consensus? What exactly should be in … Meadhbh Hamrick
- Re: [vwrap] Consensus? What exactly should be in … Morgaine
- Re: [vwrap] Consensus? What exactly should be in … Cristina Videira Lopes
- Re: [vwrap] Consensus? What exactly should be in … Cristina Videira Lopes
- Re: [vwrap] Consensus? What exactly should be in … Meadhbh Hamrick
- Re: [vwrap] Consensus? What exactly should be in … Meadhbh Hamrick
- Re: [vwrap] Consensus? What exactly should be in … Meadhbh Hamrick
- Re: [vwrap] Consensus? What exactly should be in … Cristina Videira Lopes
- Re: [vwrap] Consensus? What exactly should be in … David W Levine
- Re: [vwrap] Consensus? What exactly should be in … Meadhbh Hamrick
- Re: [vwrap] Consensus? What exactly should be in … kevin.tweedy
- Re: [vwrap] Consensus? What exactly should be in … Cristina Videira Lopes
- Re: [vwrap] Consensus? What exactly should be in … Cristina Videira Lopes
- Re: [vwrap] Consensus? What exactly should be in … Meadhbh Hamrick
- Re: [vwrap] Consensus? What exactly should be in … Morgaine
- Re: [vwrap] Consensus? What exactly should be in … Meadhbh Hamrick
- Re: [vwrap] Consensus? What exactly should be in … kevin.tweedy
- Re: [vwrap] Consensus? What exactly should be in … Meadhbh Hamrick
- Re: [vwrap] Consensus? What exactly should be in … kevin.tweedy
- Re: [vwrap] Consensus? What exactly should be in … Meadhbh Hamrick
- Re: [vwrap] Consensus? What exactly should be in … Dan Olivares
- Re: [vwrap] Consensus? What exactly should be in … Meadhbh Hamrick
- Re: [vwrap] Consensus? What exactly should be in … Morgaine
- Re: [vwrap] Consensus? What exactly should be in … kevin.tweedy
- Re: [vwrap] Consensus? What exactly should be in … Dan Olivares
- Re: [vwrap] Consensus? What exactly should be in … Meadhbh Hamrick
- Re: [vwrap] Consensus? What exactly should be in … Morgaine