Talk:LSL Protocol/Restrained Love Open Relay Group/who: Difference between revisions

From Second Life Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Newer edit →
Satomi Ahn (talk | contribs)
382 edits
moved discussion
 
Satomi Ahn (talk | contribs)
382 edits
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...'
Line 1: Line 1:
: I came to this page to add something similar to this !who meta-command. But I am not opposed to the proposed mechanism, provided it ensures that there is never an ambiguity on who is the current user (but as you present it, it looks ok).
==Old Discussion==
: Now imagine you are using a multi-device relay and you are under restrictions from several users through the same device. How should the relay interpret a !release? Should it clear every restriction from the device? Or only those that where issued by the user in the latest !who? I believe both should be made possible (but in a way that won't make the older relays go wrong... Should, in this case, a pratial release be ignored or be interpreted as a full release?).
Old discussion items can be found [[LSL_Protocol/Restrained_Life_Relay/who|here]].
:If we can agree on a good spec, I'll try to help you pushing it into the official protocol ^^. Anyway I put this in the TODO list of my multi-relay. :--[[User:Satomi Ahn|Satomi Ahn]] 16:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


:: I am sorry I am not sure whether I understand you correctly: On the one hand you are talking about a multi-device relay and on the other hand you are talking about multiple doms controlling the same device. !release must be implemented on a per device basis. Imagine you are locked up in a cell. Someone griever could simply free you with an attachment that sends !release otherwise, so spoiling all the fun.
==New Discussion==
:: For multiple persons controlling the same device, I think the last one should override older settings. It gets way to complicated to understand my non-coders otherwise. The world object should check whether it allows access by another person or not. And the relay can ask the user if she trust the new dom or not.
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?
:: We have to keep in mind that !who can be easily faked by untrusted world objects. --[[User:Maike Short|Maike Short]] 18:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
--[[User:Satomi Ahn|Satomi Ahn]] 10:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
:::Ok, I admit what I have in mind is quite complicated. I was thinking of considering a single device as several virtual devices when controlled by several doms (no risk of faking: if the command comes from another real device, of course I don't want it to allow releasing the commands from another one!). But even without going that far, it would make sense, if restrictions come from several doms on a single device, that in certain cases (to be determined by the device maker), only the restrictions coming from one dom would be cleared. --[[User:Satomi Ahn|Satomi Ahn]] 22:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
:: We are only !release'ing by object, not by person. We COULD say "release everything this person has" when they !release one... but that's not very .. er.. realistic... if they have you locked in multiple restrictions (a device in a cage for instance), they can only undo you one-at-a-time... and for the !who being faked.. yes it could be, but a) you have to have an object with the !who command (by default) so you would have to be able to fake the UUID of an object that has you actively controlled and the UUID of a person... --[[User:Ilana Debevec|Ilana Debevec]] 23:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 
Other point of discussion: when a bunch of commands prefixed by a !who have been ok'ed, should the device assume that every following bunch of commands from the same user will also be accepted? --[[User:Satomi Ahn|Satomi Ahn]] 14:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 
: No, it cannot. Some people do not like to be tpto-ed away or stripped and therefore reject those commands. --[[User:Maike Short|Maike Short]] 20:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
:: I don't understand your point. How can you know the next bunch of commands from the same user will tpto you or strip you? Is it because the previous bunch had an unpleasant result? Oh.. or maybe you say that some ppl block every srip or tp command? Ok... but that's not the issue I wanted to point to (and this precisely is not really an issue!). The problem would be if you accepted @behav=n commands and then, later, refused the @behav=y.--[[User:Satomi Ahn|Satomi Ahn]] 22:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 
If no, the device should take care of eventually releasing every restriction in a non-prefixed command (which should work, provided the relay keeps the order of execution for commands issued by a same device).
 
If yes, this makes the relay more complicated, as you have to keep in memory the fact that a user still has restrictions on the wearer. Then either you allow only one user per device to lock the relay (as older relays did for devices: only one device using a relay at a time), or you have to do some very complicated bookkeeping for users, similar as what you do for devices in multidevices-relay (which would give an over-kill, over-bloated, multi-device and multi-user relay!).
 
Well, what is your opinion on this? --[[User:Satomi Ahn|Satomi Ahn]] 14:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 
: I strongly advocate only to keep track of one user per device. Things get really complicated if different users have their own restrictions. And I thing that is not how the real world works. Sure, there can be two locks on a door with multi device support. But a second persons operating the same lock as the first person with a completely independent set of restrictions is strange. In the rare case this is really desired, the object can use a second prim or do the book keeping itself. Which is a good idea anyway so that the second person can see the restrictions of the first one.--[[User:Maike Short|Maike Short]] 20:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
: Apart from that, I think !who should only be send as first command or on change, but not prefix every command. --[[User:Maike Short|Maike Short]] 20:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
::This is not what the current spec says, but why not. In that case, we should also have a "!who/NULL_KEY" which says that from now on the commands do not come from a user. I believe we need at least that the final !release does not belong to a user (who could have been ko'ed). --[[User:Satomi Ahn|Satomi Ahn]] 22:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
::Oh and, btw, the answer was in the proposal: a new ask dialog can pop up at every new !who that is different from the latest, which is equivalent to have only one user at a time.--[[User:Satomi Ahn|Satomi Ahn]] 22:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:51, 12 June 2009

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)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.secondlife.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:LSL_Protocol/Restrained_Love_Open_Relay_Group/who&oldid=391283"