Re: Groups Implementation Discussion (Ai Austin)

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
18 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Groups Implementation Discussion (Ai Austin)

Ralf Haifisch
+1

It is very important to use a intelligent open framework AND NOT any
Approach that needs fixed ports etc. like the stone old voice in SL.

I did discuss that with lindens and lost the only realy interested company
while the hype time (3D is only a 0,1% of my Rl job atm) because the
implemented
technology was not acceptable from a firewall/routing perspective.  It is
nice
for single user or organization with not governance needs.

So it must by (from transport) something that is a holepuncher, similar to
skype.

Using https-tunnel e.g.  

Maybe it would be a nice chance to do the security groups "SL style", so one
with a SL viewer could build/interact inworld.

But if we use Jabber/XXMP for the communication part, a SL client would only
be limited In group communication - BUT could still use a second software
able to talk that protocol.  

Wouldn´t brake compatibility where it hurts.


Cheers,
Ralf

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2009 10:32:00 +0100
From: Ai Austin <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Opensim-users] Groups Implementation Discussion
To: [hidden email]
Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

Charles Krinke <[hidden email]> wrote:
>... I suppose we could go in the IRC or XMPP/Jabber direction,


I would really encourage a Jabber/XMPP approach for group (and indeed
individual) which open up all sorts of opportunities to link to
external messengers, buddy systems with geo-location (think of the
9opportuinities for in world visualisation of collaborative and
distributed teams), intelligent communications things too. Ai





_______________________________________________
Opensim-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Groups Implementation Discussion (Ai Austin)

Charles Krinke-3
Dear Ralf:

Yes, I have similar joy and angst at each of these discussions and decisions.

I think the value we can bring on this mailing list is to express some ideas in a helpful way as you have done. By doing this, we can influence the thoughts in a positive direction of those, like Adam, and others, who are implementing group stuff right now.

Having some legacy connection to our hated (and beloved) SecondLife is important.

But, ... of equal importance, is figuring out how to move off into the future with some changes that will be of more long term benefit as we get closer to the 3D internet.

Charles


From: Ralf Haifisch <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Saturday, April 4, 2009 1:12:55 PM
Subject: Re: [Opensim-users] Groups Implementation Discussion (Ai Austin)

+1

It is very important to use a intelligent open framework AND NOT any
Approach that needs fixed ports etc. like the stone old voice in SL.

I did discuss that with lindens and lost the only realy interested company
while the hype time (3D is only a 0,1% of my Rl job atm) because the
implemented
technology was not acceptable from a firewall/routing perspective.  It is
nice
for single user or organization with not governance needs.

So it must by (from transport) something that is a holepuncher, similar to
skype.

Using https-tunnel e.g. 

Maybe it would be a nice chance to do the security groups "SL style", so one
with a SL viewer could build/interact inworld.

But if we use Jabber/XXMP for the communication part, a SL client would only
be limited In group communication - BUT could still use a second software
able to talk that protocol. 

Wouldn´t brake compatibility where it hurts.


Cheers,
Ralf

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2009 10:32:00 +0100
From: Ai Austin <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Opensim-users] Groups Implementation Discussion
To: [hidden email]
Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

Charles Krinke <[hidden email]> wrote:
>... I suppose we could go in the IRC or XMPP/Jabber direction,


I would really encourage a Jabber/XMPP approach for group (and indeed
individual) which open up all sorts of opportunities to link to
external messengers, buddy systems with geo-location (think of the
9opportuinities for in world visualisation of collaborative and
distributed teams), intelligent communications things too. Ai





_______________________________________________
Opensim-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-users

_______________________________________________
Opensim-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Inventory Failure

trucker.anthony
i have been getting and error in my opensim.log file everytime someone
tries to log in


 OpenSim.Region.Communications.OGS1.OGS1SecureInventoryService [OGS1
INVENTORY SERVICE]: Requesting inventory from
http://127.0.0.1:8004/GetInventory/ for user
5cfd62d3-7652-4c1b-8e39-dff555c62438
2009-04-04 21:52:09,460 ERROR -
OpenSim.Region.Communications.OGS1.OGS1SecureInventoryService [OGS1
INVENTORY SERVICE]: Request inventory operation failed, System The
operation has timed out

is there a way to extend the time to get a users inventory or a possible
fix for this i will open a mantis tomorrow if no response
thanks in advance for any help
TA
_______________________________________________
Opensim-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Inventory Failure

Frisby, Adam
Setup a second inventory server instance on another port, configure half your regions to utilize that one. As long as the database behind them is the same, it should work and let you load balance somewhat.

Adam

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:opensim-users-
> [hidden email]] On Behalf Of [hidden email]
> Sent: Saturday, 4 April 2009 8:36 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: [Opensim-users] Inventory Failure
>
> i have been getting and error in my opensim.log file everytime someone
> tries to log in
>
>
>  OpenSim.Region.Communications.OGS1.OGS1SecureInventoryService [OGS1
> INVENTORY SERVICE]: Requesting inventory from
> http://127.0.0.1:8004/GetInventory/ for user
> 5cfd62d3-7652-4c1b-8e39-dff555c62438
> 2009-04-04 21:52:09,460 ERROR -
> OpenSim.Region.Communications.OGS1.OGS1SecureInventoryService [OGS1
> INVENTORY SERVICE]: Request inventory operation failed, System The
> operation has timed out
>
> is there a way to extend the time to get a users inventory or a
> possible
> fix for this i will open a mantis tomorrow if no response
> thanks in advance for any help
> TA
> _______________________________________________
> Opensim-users mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-users
_______________________________________________
Opensim-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Inventory Failure

trucker.anthony
appreciate the quick replybut still running into the inventory issue even
after setting up a second inventory server on port 8007i am only running
one region until i get the issue fixed



On Sun, 5 Apr 2009 01:57:10 -0400, "Frisby, Adam" <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Setup a second inventory server instance on another port, configure half
> your regions to utilize that one. As long as the database behind them is
> the same, it should work and let you load balance somewhat.
>
> Adam
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [hidden email] [mailto:opensim-users-
>> [hidden email]] On Behalf Of [hidden email]
>> Sent: Saturday, 4 April 2009 8:36 PM
>> To: [hidden email]
>> Subject: [Opensim-users] Inventory Failure
>>
>> i have been getting and error in my opensim.log file everytime someone
>> tries to log in
>>
>>
>>  OpenSim.Region.Communications.OGS1.OGS1SecureInventoryService [OGS1
>> INVENTORY SERVICE]: Requesting inventory from
>> http://127.0.0.1:8004/GetInventory/ for user
>> 5cfd62d3-7652-4c1b-8e39-dff555c62438
>> 2009-04-04 21:52:09,460 ERROR -
>> OpenSim.Region.Communications.OGS1.OGS1SecureInventoryService [OGS1
>> INVENTORY SERVICE]: Request inventory operation failed, System The
>> operation has timed out
>>
>> is there a way to extend the time to get a users inventory or a
>> possible
>> fix for this i will open a mantis tomorrow if no response
>> thanks in advance for any help
>> TA
>> _______________________________________________
>> Opensim-users mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-users
> _______________________________________________
> Opensim-users mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-users
_______________________________________________
Opensim-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Groups Implementation Discussion (Ai Austin)

Ralf Haifisch
In reply to this post by Ralf Haifisch
Dear Charles,


That is where i did like your XMPP approach.  

I guess the rex-chaps can tell a bit more about their experience, they have
been playing around with telepathy framework.

My thought was:
- diving functionality into security groups (collaboration) and distribution
groups (communication)
- doing security groups "SL style" to enable as much user as possible the
migration SL --> open source
  While still having the ability to e.g. introduce "super groups" (group in
group) for new viewer.
- doing distribution groups with jabber etc...  
  Means new viewer (maybe realxtend) whil have this ability build in - but
everyone could use a stand alone
  Client.  Event without a viewer, like IRC.  Use it on travel/at work.
Pass the firewall via http wrapping.


I thought this would be a nice step towards future, while still keeping the
sl-viewer user aboard for a while (let say, next 6 month are important)

So:  100% agreed targets with moving on...  I am a strong 3D web enthusiast

Cheers,
Ralf

------------------------------


Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 14:28:45 -0700 (PDT)
From: Charles Krinke <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Opensim-users] Groups Implementation Discussion (Ai
        Austin)
To: [hidden email]
Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Dear Ralf:

Yes, I have similar joy and angst at each of these discussions and
decisions.

I think the value we can bring on this mailing list is to express some ideas
in a helpful way as you have done. By doing this, we can influence the
thoughts in a positive direction of those, like Adam, and others, who are
implementing group stuff right now.

Having some legacy connection to our hated (and beloved) SecondLife is
important.

But, ... of equal importance, is figuring out how to move off into the
future with some changes that will be of more long term benefit as we get
closer to the 3D internet.

Charles




________________________________
From: Ralf Haifisch <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Saturday, April 4, 2009 1:12:55 PM
Subject: Re: [Opensim-users] Groups Implementation Discussion (Ai Austin)

+1

It is very important to use a intelligent open framework AND NOT any
Approach that needs fixed ports etc. like the stone old voice in SL.

I did discuss that with lindens and lost the only realy interested company
while the hype time (3D is only a 0,1% of my Rl job atm) because the
implemented
technology was not acceptable from a firewall/routing perspective.  It is
nice
for single user or organization with not governance needs.

So it must by (from transport) something that is a holepuncher, similar to
skype.

Using https-tunnel e.g.  

Maybe it would be a nice chance to do the security groups "SL style", so one
with a SL viewer could build/interact inworld.

But if we use Jabber/XXMP for the communication part, a SL client would only
be limited In group communication - BUT could still use a second software
able to talk that protocol.  

Wouldn?t brake compatibility where it hurts.


Cheers,
Ralf

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2009 10:32:00 +0100
From: Ai Austin <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Opensim-users] Groups Implementation Discussion
To: [hidden email]
Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

Charles Krinke <[hidden email]> wrote:
>... I suppose we could go in the IRC or XMPP/Jabber direction,


I would really encourage a Jabber/XMPP approach for group (and indeed
individual) which open up all sorts of opportunities to link to
external messengers, buddy systems with geo-location (think of the
9opportuinities for in world visualisation of collaborative and
distributed teams), intelligent communications things too. Ai




_______________________________________________
Opensim-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Groups Implementation Discussion (Ai Austin)

Charles Krinke-3
As I recall, we do have an IRC module, but it has fallen out of interest in testing in recent months. Perhaps we need two strategies.

The first might be to start testing the IRC module again and work on its problems.The issue with the IRC module has been that it decreases stability in the region and the region freezes. Also, some have a problem with the extremely long prefixes it generates.

It may be that our IRC module actually works better then we perceive, but since no one is using it, we just dont know anymore.

The second might be to use that module as a model for an XMPP module.

Charles


From: Ralf Haifisch <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Sunday, April 5, 2009 4:28:02 AM
Subject: Re: [Opensim-users] Groups Implementation Discussion (Ai Austin)

Dear Charles,


That is where i did like your XMPP approach. 

I guess the rex-chaps can tell a bit more about their experience, they have
been playing around with telepathy framework.

My thought was:
- diving functionality into security groups (collaboration) and distribution
groups (communication)
- doing security groups "SL style" to enable as much user as possible the
migration SL --> open source
  While still having the ability to e.g. introduce "super groups" (group in
group) for new viewer.
- doing distribution groups with jabber etc... 
  Means new viewer (maybe realxtend) whil have this ability build in - but
everyone could use a stand alone
  Client.  Event without a viewer, like IRC.  Use it on travel/at work.
Pass the firewall via http wrapping.


I thought this would be a nice step towards future, while still keeping the
sl-viewer user aboard for a while (let say, next 6 month are important)

So:  100% agreed targets with moving on...  I am a strong 3D web enthusiast

Cheers,
Ralf

------------------------------


Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 14:28:45 -0700 (PDT)
From: Charles Krinke <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Opensim-users] Groups Implementation Discussion (Ai
    Austin)
To: [hidden email]
Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Dear Ralf:

Yes, I have similar joy and angst at each of these discussions and
decisions.

I think the value we can bring on this mailing list is to express some ideas
in a helpful way as you have done. By doing this, we can influence the
thoughts in a positive direction of those, like Adam, and others, who are
implementing group stuff right now.

Having some legacy connection to our hated (and beloved) SecondLife is
important.

But, ... of equal importance, is figuring out how to move off into the
future with some changes that will be of more long term benefit as we get
closer to the 3D internet.

Charles




________________________________
From: Ralf Haifisch <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Saturday, April 4, 2009 1:12:55 PM
Subject: Re: [Opensim-users] Groups Implementation Discussion (Ai Austin)

+1

It is very important to use a intelligent open framework AND NOT any
Approach that needs fixed ports etc. like the stone old voice in SL.

I did discuss that with lindens and lost the only realy interested company
while the hype time (3D is only a 0,1% of my Rl job atm) because the
implemented
technology was not acceptable from a firewall/routing perspective.  It is
nice
for single user or organization with not governance needs.

So it must by (from transport) something that is a holepuncher, similar to
skype.

Using https-tunnel e.g. 

Maybe it would be a nice chance to do the security groups "SL style", so one
with a SL viewer could build/interact inworld.

But if we use Jabber/XXMP for the communication part, a SL client would only
be limited In group communication - BUT could still use a second software
able to talk that protocol. 

Wouldn?t brake compatibility where it hurts.


Cheers,
Ralf

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2009 10:32:00 +0100
From: Ai Austin <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Opensim-users] Groups Implementation Discussion
To: [hidden email]
Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

Charles Krinke <[hidden email]> wrote:
>... I suppose we could go in the IRC or XMPP/Jabber direction,


I would really encourage a Jabber/XMPP approach for group (and indeed
individual) which open up all sorts of opportunities to link to
external messengers, buddy systems with geo-location (think of the
9opportuinities for in world visualisation of collaborative and
distributed teams), intelligent communications things too. Ai




_______________________________________________
Opensim-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-users

_______________________________________________
Opensim-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Groups Implementation Discussion (Ai Austin)

Dr Scofield
In reply to this post by Ralf Haifisch
Ralf Haifisch wrote:

> Dear Charles,
>
>
> That is where i did like your XMPP approach.  
>
> I guess the rex-chaps can tell a bit more about their experience, they have
> been playing around with telepathy framework.
>
> My thought was:
> - diving functionality into security groups (collaboration) and distribution
> groups (communication)

playing devil's advocate: why should we have two group schemes, one for
collaboration and one for communication? all my collaboration always involves
communication (i find it a tad difficult to do collaboration without communicating).

        DrS/dirk
--
dr dirk husemann ---- virtual worlds research ---- ibm zurich research lab
SL: dr scofield ---- [hidden email] ---- http://xyzzyxyzzy.net/
RL: [hidden email] - +41 44 724 8573 - http://www.zurich.ibm.com/~hud/
_______________________________________________
Opensim-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Groups Implementation Discussion (Ai Austin)

Dr Scofield
In reply to this post by Charles Krinke-3
Charles Krinke wrote:
> As I recall, we do have an IRC module, but it has fallen out of interest
> in testing in recent months. Perhaps we need two strategies.
>
> The first might be to start testing the IRC module again and work on its
> problems.The issue with the IRC module has been that it decreases
> stability in the region and the region freezes. Also, some have a
> problem with the extremely long prefixes it generates.

those can be configured.

>
> It may be that our IRC module actually works better then we perceive,
> but since no one is using it, we just dont know anymore.

we are using it all the time for Sametime3D --- it's the bounce buffer between
our in-world chat and the sametime client.

>
> The second might be to use that module as a model for an XMPP module.

XMPP per se is good for doing IM. to support group discussion we'd need XMPP
servers that support the conferencing features.

IRC is not really on the IM level but really on the chat level --- to do chat
level stuff via XMPP we'd have to introduce the concept of distance into XMPP
first...

        DrS/dirk

--
dr dirk husemann ---- virtual worlds research ---- ibm zurich research lab
SL: dr scofield ---- [hidden email] ---- http://xyzzyxyzzy.net/
RL: [hidden email] - +41 44 724 8573 - http://www.zurich.ibm.com/~hud/
_______________________________________________
Opensim-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Groups Implementation Discussion (Ai Austin)

Ralf Haifisch
In reply to this post by Ralf Haifisch
*gg*

Sure - but unless you have a scalable and robust load balanced topology as
e.g. notes/domino, you can avaoid some trouble by having an advance.

The trouble to avoid is enumeration.

Lindens did a "one fits all" group thing.

While security groups are ACL based, they still need some kinda enumartion.


So, at the time people had more and more groups and more and more members
have been in that group and sending group IM´s, the system degraded.   If
this would have been limited to communication it would have been discomfort
- but getting the enumeration in groups getting stale, so influence in
collaboration, it was a pain in the neck.

The advantage would be the goal Charles did outline:  move on to the next
frontier.   You could keep compatibility on one (security) while setting up
a more advanced (maybe XMPP, wich could be a voice basis as well) solution
for the other (communication).

Besides that - yes, collaboration needs communication.  Call me old style -
I still prefer to be able to access files, portals and print over email
@work.  I can still pick up the headset.   So I would prefer to isolate the
communication from security for availability means, as well.


But many thanks for point that both come together, brought me to lindens
problems...

Cheers,
Ralf
------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 09:44:39 +0200
From: Dr Scofield <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Opensim-users] Groups Implementation Discussion (Ai
        Austin)
To: [hidden email]
Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15

Ralf Haifisch wrote:
> Dear Charles,
>
>
> That is where i did like your XMPP approach.  
>
> I guess the rex-chaps can tell a bit more about their experience, they
have
> been playing around with telepathy framework.
>
> My thought was:
> - diving functionality into security groups (collaboration) and
distribution
> groups (communication)

playing devil's advocate: why should we have two group schemes, one for
collaboration and one for communication? all my collaboration always
involves
communication (i find it a tad difficult to do collaboration without
communicating).

        DrS/dirk
--
dr dirk husemann ---- virtual worlds research ---- ibm zurich research lab
SL: dr scofield ---- [hidden email] ---- http://xyzzyxyzzy.net/
RL: [hidden email] - +41 44 724 8573 - http://www.zurich.ibm.com/~hud/

_______________________________________________
Opensim-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Groups Implementation Discussion (Ai Austin)

Dr Scofield
Ralf Haifisch wrote:

> *gg*
>
> Sure - but unless you have a scalable and robust load balanced topology as
> e.g. notes/domino, you can avaoid some trouble by having an advance.
>
> The trouble to avoid is enumeration.
>
> Lindens did a "one fits all" group thing.
>
> While security groups are ACL based, they still need some kinda enumartion.
>
>
> So, at the time people had more and more groups and more and more members
> have been in that group and sending group IM´s, the system degraded.   If
> this would have been limited to communication it would have been discomfort
> - but getting the enumeration in groups getting stale, so influence in
> collaboration, it was a pain in the neck.
>
> The advantage would be the goal Charles did outline:  move on to the next
> frontier.   You could keep compatibility on one (security) while setting up
> a more advanced (maybe XMPP, wich could be a voice basis as well) solution
> for the other (communication).
>
> Besides that - yes, collaboration needs communication.  Call me old style -
> I still prefer to be able to access files, portals and print over email
> @work.  I can still pick up the headset.   So I would prefer to isolate the
> communication from security for availability means, as well.

i would argue that we first of all need a proper group system, then we can make
use of the group system for various other purposes, such as access control,
modification rights, communication purposes.

        DrS/dirk

--
dr dirk husemann ---- virtual worlds research ---- ibm zurich research lab
SL: dr scofield ---- [hidden email] ---- http://xyzzyxyzzy.net/
RL: [hidden email] - +41 44 724 8573 - http://www.zurich.ibm.com/~hud/
_______________________________________________
Opensim-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Groups Implementation Discussion (Ai Austin)

Diva Canto
Whatever the group system is, just please keep it separate from region servers at a healthy distance. I would go as far as suggesting that the administration actions in groups should not be accessible via the raw LL viewer because it is a recipe for entanglement. Have all that administrative work done via web/http, which then other viewers can integrate back if they want.

Dr Scofield wrote:
Ralf Haifisch wrote:
  
*gg*

Sure - but unless you have a scalable and robust load balanced topology as
e.g. notes/domino, you can avaoid some trouble by having an advance.

The trouble to avoid is enumeration.

Lindens did a "one fits all" group thing.

While security groups are ACL based, they still need some kinda enumartion.


So, at the time people had more and more groups and more and more members
have been in that group and sending group IM´s, the system degraded.   If
this would have been limited to communication it would have been discomfort
- but getting the enumeration in groups getting stale, so influence in
collaboration, it was a pain in the neck.

The advantage would be the goal Charles did outline:  move on to the next
frontier.   You could keep compatibility on one (security) while setting up
a more advanced (maybe XMPP, wich could be a voice basis as well) solution
for the other (communication).

Besides that - yes, collaboration needs communication.  Call me old style -
I still prefer to be able to access files, portals and print over email
@work.  I can still pick up the headset.   So I would prefer to isolate the
communication from security for availability means, as well.
    

i would argue that we first of all need a proper group system, then we can make
use of the group system for various other purposes, such as access control,
modification rights, communication purposes.

	DrS/dirk

  


_______________________________________________
Opensim-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Groups Implementation Discussion (Ai Austin)

Charles Krinke-3
I think we have two "groups" discussions and perceptions going on.

1. "Group Communication" - This involves text based chat windows with messages forwarded to all the members of a group.

2. "Group Permissions" - This involves how a member of a group may terraform region parcels and edit/transfer objects owned by a group.

My personal focus is on "Group Communication" as I think this is a way to help us move forward in our grid-based communication and away from the current one->one IM scheme implemented.

But, I respect that there is a second focus.

Perhaps we can try to make our "groups" discussion a tiny bit more focused as I am getting confused about which piece folks are talking about and hence, which piece should be where.

Charles


From: Diva Canto <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Monday, April 6, 2009 8:50:07 AM
Subject: Re: [Opensim-users] Groups Implementation Discussion (Ai Austin)

Whatever the group system is, just please keep it separate from region servers at a healthy distance. I would go as far as suggesting that the administration actions in groups should not be accessible via the raw LL viewer because it is a recipe for entanglement. Have all that administrative work done via web/http, which then other viewers can integrate back if they want.

Dr Scofield wrote:
Ralf Haifisch wrote:
*gg*

Sure - but unless you have a scalable and robust load balanced topology as
e.g. notes/domino, you can avaoid some trouble by having an advance.

The trouble to avoid is enumeration.

Lindens did a "one fits all" group thing.

While security groups are ACL based, they still need some kinda enumartion.


So, at the time people had more and more groups and more and more members
have been in that group and sending group IM´s, the system degraded. If
this would have been limited to communication it would have been discomfort
- but getting the enumeration in groups getting stale, so influence in
collaboration, it was a pain in the neck.

The advantage would be the goal Charles did outline: move on to the next
frontier. You could keep compatibility on one (security) while setting up
a more advanced (maybe XMPP, wich could be a voice basis as well) solution
for the other (communication).

Besides that - yes, collaboration needs communication. Call me old style -
I still prefer to be able to access files, portals and print over email
@work. I can still pick up the headset. So I would prefer to isolate the
communication from security for availability means, as well.
i would argue that we first of all need a proper group system, then we can make
use of the group system for various other purposes, such as access control,
modification rights, communication purposes.

DrS/dirk



_______________________________________________
Opensim-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Groups Implementation Discussion (Ai Austin)

Diva Canto
For any actions/decisions to be made about groups of people, you need, first of all, and as DrScofield says, a group system. That is, you need a system that supports the concept of "group" and allows the addition/removal/update of "principals" from those groups. This system is likely embodied in a server that then is accessed by the several interested components (regions and other clients) to perform several group-related actions like communication and access control.

The administrative interactions with the group service (add/remove/update) can be done in several manners. One of them is via the raw LL viewer, with the LL viewer floaties. But that's not the only way -- it can be done via the regular web, too. Just think of a service similar to what you use for osgrid account access.

Charles Krinke wrote:
I think we have two "groups" discussions and perceptions going on.

1. "Group Communication" - This involves text based chat windows with messages forwarded to all the members of a group.

2. "Group Permissions" - This involves how a member of a group may terraform region parcels and edit/transfer objects owned by a group.

My personal focus is on "Group Communication" as I think this is a way to help us move forward in our grid-based communication and away from the current one->one IM scheme implemented.

But, I respect that there is a second focus.

Perhaps we can try to make our "groups" discussion a tiny bit more focused as I am getting confused about which piece folks are talking about and hence, which piece should be where.

Charles


From: Diva Canto [hidden email]
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Monday, April 6, 2009 8:50:07 AM
Subject: Re: [Opensim-users] Groups Implementation Discussion (Ai Austin)

Whatever the group system is, just please keep it separate from region servers at a healthy distance. I would go as far as suggesting that the administration actions in groups should not be accessible via the raw LL viewer because it is a recipe for entanglement. Have all that administrative work done via web/http, which then other viewers can integrate back if they want.

Dr Scofield wrote:
Ralf Haifisch wrote:
  
*gg*

Sure - but unless you have a scalable and robust load balanced topology as
e.g. notes/domino, you can avaoid some trouble by having an advance.

The trouble to avoid is enumeration.

Lindens did a "one fits all" group thing.

While security groups are ACL based, they still need some kinda enumartion.


So, at the time people had more and more groups and more and more members
have been in that group and sending group IM´s, the system degraded.   If
this would have been limited to communication it would have been discomfort
- but getting the enumeration in groups getting stale, so influence in
collaboration, it was a pain in the neck.

The advantage would be the goal Charles did outline:  move on to the next
frontier.   You could keep compatibility on one (security) while setting up
a more advanced (maybe XMPP, wich could be a voice basis as well) solution
for the other
 (communication).

Besides that - yes, collaboration needs communication.  Call me old style -
I still prefer to be able to access files, portals and print over email
@work.  I can still pick up the headset.   So I would prefer to isolate the
communication from security for availability means, as well.
    
i would argue that we first of all need a proper group system, then we can make
use of the group system for various other purposes, such as access control,
modification rights, communication purposes.

	DrS/dirk

  



_______________________________________________
Opensim-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Groups Implementation Discussion (Ai Austin)

Ralf Haifisch
In reply to this post by Ralf Haifisch
Dear Charles,

my personal impression from talks to user was , that there are workarounds
for chat/group messaging - but none for cooperation (security, sharing
rights on objects).

This evening we had our weekly meeting of the german users, I did ask the
question there as well.

Clear voice was "we can chat at several places, but for builders -
cooperation on objects is needed"

But for sure depends on the group and targets - maybe it´s more a german
tick.  *gg*

Cheers,
Ralf

------------------------------
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 09:06:12 -0700 (PDT)
From: Charles Krinke <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Opensim-users] Groups Implementation Discussion (Ai
        Austin)
To: [hidden email], [hidden email]
Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

I think we have two "groups" discussions and perceptions going on.

1. "Group Communication" - This involves text based chat windows with
messages forwarded to all the members of a group.

2. "Group Permissions" - This involves how a member of a group may terraform
region parcels and edit/transfer objects owned by a group.

My personal focus is on "Group Communication" as I think this is a way to
help us move forward in our grid-based communication and away from the
current one->one IM scheme implemented.

But, I respect that there is a second focus.

Perhaps we can try to make our "groups" discussion a tiny bit more focused
as I am getting confused about which piece folks are talking about and
hence, which piece should be where.

Charles




_______________________________________________
Opensim-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Groups Implementation Discussion (Ai Austin)

Ideia Boa
On WorlSimTerra our users have the same opinion, and we have people from
Europe, USA and South America
"coorperation on objects is more inportant"

Ideia Boa



Ralf Haifisch wrote:

> Dear Charles,
>
> my personal impression from talks to user was , that there are workarounds
> for chat/group messaging - but none for cooperation (security, sharing
> rights on objects).
>
> This evening we had our weekly meeting of the german users, I did ask the
> question there as well.
>
> Clear voice was "we can chat at several places, but for builders -
> cooperation on objects is needed"
>
> But for sure depends on the group and targets - maybe itŽs more a german
> tick.  *gg*
>
> Cheers,
> Ralf
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 09:06:12 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Charles Krinke <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Opensim-users] Groups Implementation Discussion (Ai
> Austin)
> To: [hidden email], [hidden email]
> Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> I think we have two "groups" discussions and perceptions going on.
>
> 1. "Group Communication" - This involves text based chat windows with
> messages forwarded to all the members of a group.
>
> 2. "Group Permissions" - This involves how a member of a group may terraform
> region parcels and edit/transfer objects owned by a group.
>
> My personal focus is on "Group Communication" as I think this is a way to
> help us move forward in our grid-based communication and away from the
> current one->one IM scheme implemented.
>
> But, I respect that there is a second focus.
>
> Perhaps we can try to make our "groups" discussion a tiny bit more focused
> as I am getting confused about which piece folks are talking about and
> hence, which piece should be where.
>
> Charles
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Opensim-users mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-users
>
>  

_______________________________________________
Opensim-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-users

ideiaboa.vcf (284 bytes) Download Attachment
Best regards
Ideia Boa
www.WorldSimTerra.com
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Groups Implementation Discussion (Ai Austin)

M.E. Verhagen
In reply to this post by Dr Scofield
I think for the access control and the modification right we need an acl type of thing, for the communication puposes something like a social app would be better I would be cool I if would be possible to connect opensim to some sort of social app like hypes or yahoo.

>i would argue that we first of all need a proper group system, then we can make
>use of the group system for various other purposes, such as access control,
>modification rights, communication purposes.

> DrS/dirk

>--
>dr dirk husemann ---- virtual worlds research ---- ibm zurich research lab
>SL: dr scofield ---- [hidden email] ---- http://xyzzyxyzzy.net/
>RL: [hidden email] - +41 44 724 8573 - http://www.zurich.ibm.com/~hud/
>_______________________________________________
>Opensim-users mailing list
>[hidden email]
>https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-users

_______________________________________________
Opensim-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-users
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Groups Implementation Discussion (Ai Austin)

Frisby, Adam
About to say this too - I think user rights need an ACL system that is independent of everything else. UI-wise it can be tied together, but internally it should be very clearly an ACL data structure.

Now as a matter of fact, I wrote the base classes for this about a year ago (see ACLList.cs), it's just currently unused.

Adam

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:opensim-users-
> [hidden email]] On Behalf Of Marcel Edward Verhagen
> Sent: Monday, 6 April 2009 2:52 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [Opensim-users] Groups Implementation Discussion (Ai
> Austin)
>
> I think for the access control and the modification right we need an
> acl type of thing, for the communication puposes something like a
> social app would be better I would be cool I if would be possible to
> connect opensim to some sort of social app like hypes or yahoo.
>
> >i would argue that we first of all need a proper group system, then we
> can make
> >use of the group system for various other purposes, such as access
> control,
> >modification rights, communication purposes.
>
> > DrS/dirk
>
> >--
> >dr dirk husemann ---- virtual worlds research ---- ibm zurich research
> lab
> >SL: dr scofield ---- [hidden email] ----
> http://xyzzyxyzzy.net/
> >RL: [hidden email] - +41 44 724 8573 -
> http://www.zurich.ibm.com/~hud/
> >_______________________________________________
> >Opensim-users mailing list
> >[hidden email]
> >https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-users
>
> _______________________________________________
> Opensim-users mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-users
_______________________________________________
Opensim-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-users