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

[Dan Olivares <[e-mail]>]

I wasn't actually responding to you specifically kevin.   I was just stating
that a javascript client is a client in terms of the definitions that are
established.   I mentioned that because there was some mention of JavaScript
by Ms Cristina Videira Lopes.

Regards

Dan

On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 5:24 PM, <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I never used the word javascript.  Why are you assuming web based
> application needs to use javascript?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Meadhbh Hamrick [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 4:55 PM
> To: Dan Olivares
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [vwrap] Consensus? What exactly should be in the protocol
>
> kevin mentioned he had a javascript based virtual world simulator that
> ran in a browser.
>
> i'm surprised it can support multiple users.
>
> --
> meadhbh hamrick * it's pronounced "maeve"
> @OhMeadhbh * http://meadhbh.org/ * [e-mail]
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 1:52 PM, Dan Olivares <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> > 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:
> >>
> >> 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
> >
> >
>
>