Talk:LSL Protocol/Restrained Love Open Relay Group/x-tensions

About !x-listen: is it really useful when it would be enough to listen only to the victim's relay, and for the victim's relay to listen only to the controlling device? Note that this would only make sense with a mono-device relay, as a multi one would still have to listen to everything on RLVR channel. --Satomi Ahn 10:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Answering to myself: yes it makes sense, as this very relay session won't spam other devices during that time. This could become really efficient against lag if this becomes majoritary. This should definitely be proposed to the standard protocol as mandatory for 1.050. --Satomi Ahn 10:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

For people coming after the battle: at that time, I mistook the intention of !x-listen for what is now called "!x-channel".--Satomi Ahn 14:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The command I am really looking forward to being implemented is the the !x-handover command. I can thing of some really useful uses of this .. patrolling drones sending to cells .. etc. SimonT Quinnell 11:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

It has been implemented in my relay for ages now! But without much conviction because I didn't know any device using it, neither did I saw any real use for it. I would be interested to now more about your partolling drones! --Satomi Ahn 14:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

About !x-message: I am more and more dubious about this meta-command: llInstantMessage will only make the script sleep for 2 seconds, which is not usually really an issue for such devices. Replacing it with more lag on RLVR channel doesn't look very good. Other opinions? --Satomi Ahn 14:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Something I spotted in Marine's specification:

Note from Marine : This metacommand is particularly interesting, and is likely to go to the Other Metacommands section in the future, or even in the main spec. It needs to be designed thoroughly first, though. I don't think it needs to be so complex, but it sure needs some checking.

Note the reference to an "Other Metacommands" section. I don't know what her intent exactly is, but it looks quite close to ORG goals. Shouldn't we try to inquire on this? --Satomi Ahn 12:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)