[sldev] Re: Plugin architecture
mindtriggerz at gmail.com
Sun Feb 25 12:47:03 PST 2007
Well, with LSL object metadata, there's no risk of
noninteroperability. The client can either interpret the metadata or
just not add the feature.
On 2/25/07, alissa_sabre at yahoo.co.jp <alissa_sabre at yahoo.co.jp> wrote:
> I'm concerned with recent plugin/LSL discussion.
> I don't want to see any script that requires some particular plugin
> and/or non-standard Viewer feature. I want all scripts to be able to
> run on all official Viewer without any specific plugin.
> Hence, I don't want to have any LSL extention that allows script
> writer to access to some particular plugin and/or some particular
> Viewer feature.
> The key concern here is the interoperability between Viewers with
> different sets of plugins.
> Assume one in-world object, say XYZ necklace, has an embedded script,
> and the script accesses the XYZ plugin's own feature. What happens if
> I wear the XYZ neckalce and walk around?
> I'm afraid of the disruption of the SL users.
> Plugin mechanism is OK, but I hope it doen't break interoperability
> that we have today.
> Start Yahoo! Auction now! Check out the cool campaign
> Click here to unsubscribe or manage your list subscription:
More information about the SLDev