Difference between revisions of "Talk:LSL Protocol/Restrained Love Open Relay Group/who"
Satomi Ahn (talk | contribs) (Replacing page with '==Old Discussion== Old discussion items can be found here. ==New Discussion== Before we replace all the !who by !x-who, I would sugg...') |
|||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
Before we replace all the !who by !x-who, I would suggest a better name (because well, if you hear who, the next question would be "Who's who?"). Why not be more explicit with a name like !x-operator? With such a way, it is obvious "who" we are talking about. Otherwise, one could interpret !who as the name of the owner, or that of the creator or who knows? | Before we replace all the !who by !x-who, I would suggest a better name (because well, if you hear who, the next question would be "Who's who?"). Why not be more explicit with a name like !x-operator? With such a way, it is obvious "who" we are talking about. Otherwise, one could interpret !who as the name of the owner, or that of the creator or who knows? | ||
--[[User:Satomi Ahn|Satomi Ahn]] 10:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC) | --[[User:Satomi Ahn|Satomi Ahn]] 10:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC) | ||
: We can do that, though I think that !who (!x-who) is sufficient in that it is "who is causing something to happen" - the creator and owner of the object I can already get from the object's UUID. The only thing I can't get is ''who'' is using the object. I prefer to keep this as !who, but if there is pressure for !x-operator I'll go along with it. --[[User:Chloe1982 Constantine|Chloe1982 Constantine]] 23:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
==Make Re-ask Optional== | |||
I was looking at the spec and noticed the discussion with respect to a subsequent !x-who being different from the first one received. I'm bothered by this as I see the real world analogy going like the following: | |||
I am standing next to a set of stocks and beckon you over, perhaps unwisely, you accept, and I lock you in. Then after teasing you for a while I wander off leaving you helpless in the stocks. When I am out of the way, along comes ''Evil Avatar'' who decides to take advantage of your helpless state and starts torturing you mercilessly. | |||
The above scenario suggests that you shouldn't be asked a second time. Given that toys operate in all sorts of ways and different relays operate in different ways, I recommend we make this requirement to re-ask if the !x-who information changes an option. --[[User:Chloe1982 Constantine|Chloe1982 Constantine]] 09:46, 13 December 2012 (PST) | |||
Latest revision as of 10:46, 13 December 2012
Old Discussion
Old discussion items can be found here.
New Discussion
Before we replace all the !who by !x-who, I would suggest a better name (because well, if you hear who, the next question would be "Who's who?"). Why not be more explicit with a name like !x-operator? With such a way, it is obvious "who" we are talking about. Otherwise, one could interpret !who as the name of the owner, or that of the creator or who knows? --Satomi Ahn 10:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- We can do that, though I think that !who (!x-who) is sufficient in that it is "who is causing something to happen" - the creator and owner of the object I can already get from the object's UUID. The only thing I can't get is who is using the object. I prefer to keep this as !who, but if there is pressure for !x-operator I'll go along with it. --Chloe1982 Constantine 23:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Make Re-ask Optional
I was looking at the spec and noticed the discussion with respect to a subsequent !x-who being different from the first one received. I'm bothered by this as I see the real world analogy going like the following:
I am standing next to a set of stocks and beckon you over, perhaps unwisely, you accept, and I lock you in. Then after teasing you for a while I wander off leaving you helpless in the stocks. When I am out of the way, along comes Evil Avatar who decides to take advantage of your helpless state and starts torturing you mercilessly.
The above scenario suggests that you shouldn't be asked a second time. Given that toys operate in all sorts of ways and different relays operate in different ways, I recommend we make this requirement to re-ask if the !x-who information changes an option. --Chloe1982 Constantine 09:46, 13 December 2012 (PST)