Second Life Wiki - User contributions [en]

Talk:LSL Protocol/Restrained Love Relay/Specification

2008-09-02T06:44:56Z

Galatea Gynoid: /* Script name requirement */

== Script name requirement ==

The current version of the spec contains rules for the name of the relay script. The problem is, the rules seem to preclude the possibility of updating using llRemoteLoadScriptPin, which requires a stable name for the target script in order to properly replace it. If the script is changed to support a new version, the spec requires the script be renamed, but that's impractical for a script subject to automatic updating. I'm also unsure if there's any point to this rule. In the case of the product I'm currently working on, the relay script is buried in a child prim (to prevent relayed rules interfering with its own rules), which makes attempting to check its name a pretty unfriendly way for the end user to determine version information. Having version information easily available to the end user is a good idea, but requiring the script be named a particular way doesn't provide that, it just interferes with auto-update functionality without apparent benefit. Is there some other reason for saying a script must be named a particular way (e.g. the viewer checks the script name for this info), or can that rule be safely ignored (despite the "must" in the spec)? If there's a technical reason for the naming requirement, can it be changed so that the prim containing the script is required to be named a particular way, rather than the script itself?
--[[User:Galatea Gynoid|Galatea Gynoid]] 17:48, 19 August 2008 (PDT)

: I think there is no technical reason. --[[User:Maike Short|Maike Short]] 12:26, 22 August 2008 (PDT)

: There is no technical reason indeed, and I think that naming rule may be lifted in the near future, especially if it is a problem for people to update their stuff... however the user 'must' be able to check the version one way or another. --[[User:Marine Kelley|Marine Kelley]] 11:44, 1 September 2008 (PDT)

::Fair enough -- I'm using a "Version..." command in my menus that prints:
::* Implant Version 0.7
::* Compatibility:
::* Restrained Life Viewer: 1.12.2 +
::* Relay Specification: 1.014
::iz gud? --[[User:Galatea Gynoid|Galatea Gynoid]] 23:44, 1 September 2008 (PDT)

Talk:LSL Protocol/Restrained Love Relay/Specification

2008-08-20T00:48:57Z

Galatea Gynoid: New page: == Script name requirement == The current version of the spec contains rules for the name of the relay script. The problem is, the rules seem to preclude the possibility of updating usin...

Talk:LSL Protocol/RestrainedLoveAPI

2008-08-17T19:07:16Z

Galatea Gynoid:

===Question regarding @remoutfit and teens===

Thank you for putting up that API.

But I got a question regarding the ''@remoutfit[:<part>]=<y/n>''-command:
It says''(underpants and underwear are kept for teens)''. What do you mean with that?

Is removing underwear disabled only on teengrid? Is it disabled in PG Areas? Or just one of your nice jokes? :-)

MK: No no this time it was not a joke, the standard viewer actually checks that you're not on the teen grid and if you are, discards removing underwear. I took care of not breaking that check when adding the remoutfit command :)

== How to use for bondage furniture? ==

Hi Marine,

Good stuff, your viewer. I have a question on how to use the API in bondage furniture.

As a test I did put the @remoutfit=force in the menuhandler of a bondage cross that I have. Now, when I use the menu while not sitting on the cross ... I am suddenly naked. Blush. Nice effect, but not what I expected. I expected the command to work on the AvatarOnSitTarget, if that person would use your viewer.

Do I do something wrong, or is your viewer focused to impact the Owner of worn attachments? If the former, please let me know how to do it right. If the latter, it would be great if the viewer would work on Owner in case of attachments, and work on AvatarOnSitTarget in case of objects to sit on.

Looking forward to your answer.
Ciao, Tam

The answer came to me in world. Use the RealRestraint Relay
https://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/LSL_Protocol/RestrainedLifeRelaySpecs

== Meaningless or App-Defined Rules ==

I noticed (accidentially, due to a misspelling) that if you send a rule that doesn't exist, it has no effect, but it DOES remember the rule, and can be retrieved using @getstatus. For example, you can llOwnerSay("@randomtext=n") and later when you call llOwnerSay("@getstatus=x") the rules in the response will include "randomtext" in the list.

Is this a bug or a feature? The reason I ask is, there are some good uses for this if the behavior can be depended upon, but if it's likely to disappear in a future version, then I'll steer clear of using it. Thanks.

--[[User:Galatea Gynoid|Galatea Gynoid]] 12:07, 17 August 2008 (PDT)