It is currently Mon Sep 01, 2014 11:24 pm

All times are UTC




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 29 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

What level of access do you think 3rd party addons should have in MOUL?
None - Bots and other programs don't belong in MOUL 17%  17%  [ 9 ]
Simulated user only - OHBot falls into this category 15%  15%  [ 8 ]
Independent programs - Such as a KI chat program 15%  15%  [ 8 ]
Full vault access - Programs that could look up a player by KI or name, for example 33%  33%  [ 17 ]
Other - Please explain 19%  19%  [ 10 ]
Total votes : 52
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 04, 2010 4:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2006 10:25 am
Posts: 2031
Location: Sadly in Germany
Christian Walther wrote:
I don’t see why or how we should or could make a difference between “3rd party addons” and “game clients”.


Why: because automation can be used for good as well as evil. Consider a single human spammer. Annoying? Sure. Easy to move on from? Probably. Now, consider a single spamming bot. Still easy to ignore, but in the time it takes to do that, he's already sent out an order of a magnitude as many messages as the human by virtue of not having to type them out manually.

How: 1) by requiring clients to signify their capabilities using an OAuth-like API key system, as OHB alluded to, and then 2) at the shard admins' discretion.

_________________
Sören Nils 'chucker' Kuklau

(Or something.)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 04, 2010 4:51 pm 
Offline
Obduction Backer

Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 12:28 am
Posts: 1118
chucker wrote:
at the shard admins' discretion.


I'd rather not see a different API for each shard. I'd like to see something central. Down the line when there are shards, it'll all still be connected...we can PM between shards...no reason the vault can't have an API. If each shard has anything shard-specific, they can create their own separate API. But for global data, it should be a single unified API for both ease of use, expandability, security, and perhaps most importantly, sanity of developers.

_________________
Image
Click here to change my signature!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 04, 2010 5:03 pm 
Offline
Obduction Backer

Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 12:55 pm
Posts: 9845
Location: Luton, UK
I don't think "central" works. It's a vault (database) that governs what is or isn't a shard. From that standpoint, it's just yes or no regarding the API, rather than flavour.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 04, 2010 6:11 pm 
Offline
Obduction Backer

Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 2:02 pm
Posts: 740
Location: Switzerland
chucker wrote:
Christian Walther wrote:
I don’t see why or how we should or could make a difference between “3rd party addons” and “game clients”.


Why: because automation can be used for good as well as evil. Consider a single human spammer. Annoying? Sure. Easy to move on from? Probably. Now, consider a single spamming bot. Still easy to ignore, but in the time it takes to do that, he's already sent out an order of a magnitude as many messages as the human by virtue of not having to type them out manually.

How: 1) by requiring clients to signify their capabilities using an OAuth-like API key system, as OHB alluded to, and then 2) at the shard admins' discretion.


I agree with all that (I don’t know what OAuth is, but I’m sure I’ll learn it in time), but what does that have to do with distinguishing “addons” and “clients”?

Are these categories even well-defined? I guess WhoM is a client (since it makes its own connection to the server) and OHBot is an addon (since it works through Cyan’s official client), but once we can build our own game clients based on Cyan’s, all kinds of in-between things become possible.

Why would we want to have different rules for the two? If you don’t want spam, then you need to disallow both spamming addons and spamming clients.

In a nutshell, what I wanted to say is that I see no point in a discussion exclusively about “addons” or “3rd parties”, as this thread appears to be. (Who’s going to be the 1st and 3rd parties in a decentralized open-source world?) Unless the original poster meant “addons” in a sense that includes what I call “clients”, but I’d consider that a strange terminology (added to what?).


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 04, 2010 6:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2006 10:25 am
Posts: 2031
Location: Sadly in Germany
OHB wrote:
chucker wrote:
at the shard admins' discretion.


I'd rather not see a different API for each shard.


I didn't mean that at all. I meant that the decision over allowing or banning individual bots is per-shard, just like it is the case for human explorers

_________________
Sören Nils 'chucker' Kuklau

(Or something.)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 04, 2010 6:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2006 10:25 am
Posts: 2031
Location: Sadly in Germany
Christian Walther wrote:
Are these categories even well-defined? I guess WhoM is a client (since it makes its own connection to the server) and OHBot is an addon (since it works through Cyan’s official client), but once we can build our own game clients based on Cyan’s, all kinds of in-between things become possible.


I'm not sure why you're muddling orthogonal facets of a client — on the one hand, whether they serve to let you play (UruExplorer), merely provide limited pieces of information (WhoM), or let you participate in a limited sense (libpurple plug-in); on the other hand, whether an actual person logs in (all three) or a bot (OHBot, etc.). WhoM uses the same account as the regular UruExplorer client. I would expect a bot to eventually use its own account.

_________________
Sören Nils 'chucker' Kuklau

(Or something.)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 04, 2010 6:34 pm 
Offline
Obduction Backer

Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 12:28 am
Posts: 1118
chucker wrote:
Christian Walther wrote:
Are these categories even well-defined? I guess WhoM is a client (since it makes its own connection to the server) and OHBot is an addon (since it works through Cyan’s official client), but once we can build our own game clients based on Cyan’s, all kinds of in-between things become possible.


I'm not sure why you're muddling orthogonal facets of a client — on the one hand, whether they serve to let you play (UruExplorer), merely provide limited pieces of information (WhoM), or let you participate in a limited sense (libpurple plug-in); on the other hand, whether an actual person logs in (all three) or a bot (OHBot, etc.). WhoM uses the same account as the regular UruExplorer client. I would expect a bot to eventually use its own account.


Here's my PERSONAL feelings on this.

1. The back-end client-server communications are so perilous right now that 3rd party REPLACEMENT clients shouldn't be allowed (YET).

2. There should be hooks within the client to allow add-ons to easily do things.

3. There should be a central API to handle other stuff like WhoM.

_________________
Image
Click here to change my signature!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 04, 2010 6:57 pm 
Offline
Creative Kingdoms

Joined: Tue May 09, 2006 8:06 pm
Posts: 5969
Location: Everywhere, all at once
OHB wrote:
3. There should be a central API to handle other stuff like WhoM.

When you say "central," do you mean one server handling all shards, or one standard which all shards can implement?

_________________
OpenUru.org: An Uru Project Resource Site : Twitter : Make a commitment.
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 04, 2010 7:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2006 10:25 am
Posts: 2031
Location: Sadly in Germany
I find it hard to see how an absolute "central" authority will work (or why anyone would want that) with an open-source model.

_________________
Sören Nils 'chucker' Kuklau

(Or something.)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 04, 2010 7:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 09, 2006 9:16 pm
Posts: 367
Location: Montana
I'm going to guess that when OHB says central; that he really means 'common'. I think this makes sense in the WhoM case because it would allow a single(central?) web app to poll all known shards and create a single list of who's online where.

_________________
Through space and time; along the threads of the stars; we seek the knowledge and wisdom of the ages.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 04, 2010 8:05 pm 
Offline
Obduction Backer

Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 12:28 am
Posts: 1118
I'm gonna leave my comment as is and bow out at this point :)

_________________
Image
Click here to change my signature!


Last edited by OHB on Mon Apr 05, 2010 4:19 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 04, 2010 8:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2006 10:25 am
Posts: 2031
Location: Sadly in Germany
Teedyo wrote:
I'm going to guess that when OHB says central; that he really means 'common'. I think this makes sense in the WhoM case because it would allow a single(central?) web app to poll all known shards and create a single list of who's online where.


Even if we were to accept that there's only one auth server, i.e. one central, "common" authority (which I think is unfeasible at least for development purposes — does anyone actually think that experimental Uru builds at Cyan connected to the public auth server? Kinda risky, no?), this would still be be quite difficult: each shard has its own KI numbers, so there's no common registry for what constitutes one and the same avatar.

One could of course go through the pains of having the user manually merge multiple avatars together and have them assert that they're one person, similar to what some IM clients let you do.

_________________
Sören Nils 'chucker' Kuklau

(Or something.)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 3:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 09, 2006 9:16 pm
Posts: 367
Location: Montana
Easy: Shard, Expl_name, KI_num. Every entry is unique.

Clarify. I don't think there needs be only one list. It's just that with a common API there can be... or there can be a dozen complete lists.

Quote:
I'm gonna leave my commend as is and bow out at this point

@OHB Of course, you are commendable. :P

_________________
Through space and time; along the threads of the stars; we seek the knowledge and wisdom of the ages.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 4:19 am 
Offline
Obduction Backer

Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 12:28 am
Posts: 1118
Teedyo wrote:
Easy: Shard, Expl_name, KI_num. Every entry is unique.

Clarify. I don't think there needs be only one list. It's just that with a common API there can be... or there can be a dozen complete lists.

Quote:
I'm gonna leave my commend as is and bow out at this point

@OHB Of course, you are commendable. :P


Yes but /doh

_________________
Image
Click here to change my signature!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 29 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: