Jump to content

Script That Allows Purchase From the Demo?


FairreLilette
 Share

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 531 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, Paul Hexem said:

Completely incorrect, two or three times over. 

With the exception of DJs (not all of which use club tip boards either), no not really. Live performers rarely if ever use any tip jars they don't have complete control over. Hosts and DJs often have their own tip jars too. As common as club boards are, it isn't exactly rare to see a host or a dj owned tip jar.

Edited by Adam Spark
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used to script tip jars for club owners to split revenue with their hosts, dancers, and some DJs, but other DJs would rez their own tip jars (which didn't split tips), and every live performance I go to seems to operate with that latter approach, with the performer owning the tip jar.

The thing I wanted to say, though, was that I always insisted that the club owner have the scripts full perm (tip jars, contest boards, anything I gave them that needed PERMISSION_DEBIT). Always. I would never expect them to approve that permission for anything they couldn't review (or get somebody else to review) and I'd warn them of this over and over: NEVER APPROVE PERMISSION_DEBIT FOR ANYTHING UNLESS YOU CAN SEE THE SOURCE CODE. If you don't get source and absolutely must have the functionality, get an impoverished alt to do it and make sure that alt never has a larger L$ balance than the function demands. 

I doubt any of them listened to me. And obviously I wasn't in the business of selling scripts.

For a bunch of reasons, I really really wish it were possible for temp-attached items to belong to somebody other than the avatar to whom it attaches. I'm not confident that this would solve this demo-vendor problem anyway, but it sure would change it.

If there were a more sophisticated permission -- perhaps to debit up to a stated maximum amount and only for a limited time, say -- such a thing could make this safe enough to be worth considering. But good luck finding a Linden developer willing to poke into a mostly working permissions system. It took courage and lots of testing to add llTransferLindenDollars(), a much requested improvement over the old llGiveMoney(), and that didn't even touch permissions.

Clearly there's not nearly enough additional revenue at stake for the Lab to devote developer (and huge QA) resources to define a whole new permission involving L$s. One thing that might get it done: If enough folks want a payable demo so much that they actually approve the permission and then all their L$ balances get completely wiped out, that might be incentive enough.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said:

NEVER APPROVE PERMISSION_DEBIT FOR ANYTHING UNLESS YOU CAN SEE THE SOURCE CODE. If you don't get source and absolutely must have the functionality, get an impoverished alt to do it and make sure that alt never has a larger L$ balance than the function demands. 

That is excellent advice. I have said much the same thing. The real risk is not so much that there are con artists out there, but that it's very easy to write bad scripts that can make user accounts vulnerable.  Even a good script can lead to bad results if people disregard warnings, but it's hard to tell a good script from a bad one if you can't see the source code. If you are setting up vendors or tip jars that expect you to grant PERMISSION_DEBIT, you need to be able to see how they are doing it. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Qie Niangao said:

Clearly there's not nearly enough additional revenue at stake for the Lab to devote developer (and huge QA) resources to define a whole new permission involving L$s. One thing that might get it done: If enough folks want a payable demo so much that they actually approve the permission and then all their L$ balances get completely wiped out, that might be incentive enough.

I wanted to thank Qie too for all his helpful insight.  

The above, however, would be dreadful, for all of us.  

So, what about a PURCHASE VENDOR with a reputable name that can be REZZED to purchase that comes with the demo so you can purchase the item in your own home?   The only way we can know it's not scripted for scam though is perhaps to have a reputable name like CasperVend and/or LL itself?   Many of us are accustomed to CasperVend for our homes or shops inworld...so maybe it could work.  

I know, for myself, creators would have had a lot more sales from me if I'd been able to purchase some way at my SL home after I picked up demos.  I have so much lag at events, it's like a salmon swimming upstream, but then to go back to the event and find where the item(s) is/are that I want to buy and face that lag again makes me not want to go back to the event. 

I found this little store on MP.  Not many hairs listed on MP.  So, I looked inworld to see if there was a shop.  There was an inworld large shop of all kinds of hairs, hundreds...so I picked up about 15 demos.   But, to go back to the inworld store and find each picture the demo belongs to takes a long time.  "If" there had been a way to buy from the demos in my own home, I would have bought at least 5 hairs right then and there.  Anyhow, I did go back to the inworld store and found one hair and bought it, but I would have bought five if easier to do.  I still haven't found the corresponding pictures to the demos to buy any other hairs yet.  Just finding one took a while.  

Edit:  I also wanted to say that not being able to find all the products that I do want from the demos creates a problem.  See I want to delete all the demos after I'm done shopping inworld or else those demos are no longer in my RECENT area of my inventory if I shut the viewer down before purchasing all I want.   If I shut down the viewer and those demos aren't in my RECENT area of my inventory, I cannot always find the demos again because I don't remember the name unless I write it all down on a notecard which takes more time and so I end up deleting demos before I've had a chance to find the item(s) I want to buy.    And, I don't want to go through lag to get demos again, especially not an event type of lag.  These are the things that brought me to ask this question and it's mostly inworld stuff.  MP - easy if they have demos and the items listed.   So MP isn't the problem.  

Edited by FairreLilette
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/4/2020 at 5:08 PM, Wulfie Reanimator said:

The rezzable vendor would work without problems.

The crux of the issue is that if it's attached to an avatar, you cannot pay it. As long as it's not a HUD (or worn on your foot or whatever), there are no issues.

1 hour ago, FairreLilette said:

So, what about a PURCHASE VENDOR with a reputable name that can be REZZED to purchase that comes with the demo so you can purchase the item in your own home?

Quoting myself as well because I can't edit that post anymore.

I'm not sure why I didn't realize this at the time but the rez solution has the same ownership problem as the demo/HUD. The rezzing has to be done by you, so you'd be the owner. So if you pay the vendor... you get your own money.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Wulfie Reanimator said:

Quoting myself as well because I can't edit that post anymore.

I'm not sure why I didn't realize this at the time but the rez solution has the same ownership problem as the demo/HUD. The rezzing has to be done by you, so you'd be the owner. So if you pay the vendor... you get your own money.

Ah, I see Wulfie.  

That is too bad because I could purchase about 5 things in about 5 minutes as opposed to going to one store and finding all 5 corresponding photographs and names to buy the 5 items which could take at least an hour or more, and more likely far more than an hour...so many times I don't even do it as time is money to customers too.  For an event, forget about it...with the lag...I may pick up on one item after fighting through terrible lag and then delete all the other demos as trying to find the vendor(s) at the event through the lag is a big ordeal and I feel I'm lucky if I got one item.   If only there was a work-around.  I think there is BUT it's through that Permission Thing unfortunately and most of us hate it, if not all of us hate it.  

Thanks for the input everyone.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/2/2020 at 9:36 PM, Chaser Zaks said:
  1. Have a button to "buy full version" on the hud
  2. Pop up a dialog explaining the debit permission, as well as a confirmation
  3. Request debit permissions
  4. Make payment through LLTransferLindenDollars
  5. Verify payment through transaction_result
  6. Send HTTP request to a server somewhere authenticating the payment
  7. Have the server send out a copy of the full version

 

Okay, regarding this above and the need for permission.  I looked up the LLTransferLindenDollars script in the Wiki here:

This is part of it:

  • Do not depend upon the auto-grant status of permissions. Always use the run_time_permissions event.
  • If the script lacks the permission PERMISSION_DEBIT, the script will shout an error on DEBUG_CHANNEL and the operation fails (but the script continues to run).
  • If PERMISSION_DEBIT is granted by anyone other than the owner, then when the function is called an error will be shouted on DEBUG_CHANNEL.

___________________________________________________________________________________

Regarding Another Script that Supposedly Needs Permission:  Okay, about this permission thing and it will not work IF the script lacks the permission and will SHOUT AN ERROR...IIStartAnimation says a bit of the same thing - it needs "permission" and permission scripts.  

However, I have made items that animate on attach but I do not need any kind of permission script for the object to work nor for the object to stop working once the item is detached.  My animate on attach objects ALL work fine without needing "permisson".  So, it did make me wonder why this permission is even needed when we can pay CasperVend inworld or tipjars or what have yous inworld without it asking our permission plus I can make objects that attach and detach just fine without need of that permission thing.  People have a cup, they wear it, it begins it's animation...there is no need for the "old fashioned" needs permission types of scripts.  And, that's what made me wonder why does it even need to ask us when it's not even a uniform thing to ask us permission to take lindens all across the board.  

Anyhow, you don't need to answer but I know darn well I can make items attach and detach without any kind of "permission" scripts needed whatsoever.  But, people may want these free scripts whereas I paid for a more modernized script that was only about 75 lindens.  

So, I'm gathering IITransferLindenDollars script cannot be "modernized" in any way then.  I do not see it needing permission when we can pay for all sorts of things inworld through vendors, tipjars, or even pay friends directly other than it's written into the script which is free.   

Yet, you don't need to answer...I just wanted to explain how things I make have no need to ask "permission" and that seemed very "old school" to me...it's not needed.  

Maybe LL can look to modernize through a mobile app perhaps?...who knows.  But, some of SL does need to come into the 21st Century already.  Marketplace needs a lot more search filters especially mesh/partial mesh/non-mesh or rigged/unrigged etc type of filters so people can search for what they want.  MP looks like something from the year 1996 about when I started on Ebay with bare bones.  

  

Edited by FairreLilette
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FairreLilette said:

My animate on attach objects ALL work fine without needing "permisson". 

Permission to animate an avatar is automatically granted if the request is coming from an object that is attached to the target avatar. The request still needs to be done. If you rez your object on the ground instead of attaching it, you'll see the permission dialog (unless the script is written smartly in such a way that it won't try to request permissions if it's rezzed.. in which case it won't animate you either). Many permissions are granted automatically if the target is sitting on the requesting object, or has it attached. See this page.

1 hour ago, FairreLilette said:

So, it did make me wonder why this permission is even needed when we can pay CasperVend inworld or tipjars or what have yous inworld without it asking our permission

You being able to pay an object is completely different from the object taking money from you. They're like the opposite lanes of a highway. You definitely shouldn't confuse the two.

Edited by Wulfie Reanimator
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Wulfie Reanimator said:

Permission to animate an avatar is automatically granted if the request is coming from an object that is attached to the target avatar. The request still needs to be done. 

Yes, upon wear it begins animation there is no need to request permission...and it revokes better, it revokes simply by detaching it.  Done.  That IIStartAnimation script looks like it has bugs in it.  I'm glad I found a way to over-ride it.   Because mine works without bugs.  

 

23 minutes ago, Wulfie Reanimator said:

You being able to pay an object is completely different from the object taking money from you. They're like the opposite lanes of a highway. You definitely shouldn't confuse the two.

Okay, I'm trying here...because when you pay a CasperVend object for your rental payments, it takes money from you and I think it gives you a transaction ID.  However, we are not the owners of the CasperVend object when we pay rent.  But, what I'm also saying is that we don't have to give permission to objects to take money from us...tipjars are objects, they take money...vendors are objects, they take money.  But, again, those objects don't have us as owner. 

So, it's basically you cannot pay an object if you are the owner of that object, but I'm wondering if a script can over-ride this "ownership" thing.  Some say it can but what kind of script.  Is LLTransferLindenDollars the only money script one can use in SL?  Because, it's seems to me that LLTransferLindenDollars has bugs in it too plus it's written very "scary".  

Answer when you have time...no rush...if you want to...you don't have too, of course.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Adam Spark said:

With the exception of DJs (not all of which use club tip boards either), no not really. Live performers rarely if ever use any tip jars they don't have complete control over. Hosts and DJs often have their own tip jars too. As common as club boards are, it isn't exactly rare to see a host or a dj owned tip jar.

You're still incorrect.

DJs and Live Performers aren't the only people in SL that work on tips. They're only a very tiny minority. There's whole industries built on going somewhere, logging in, and earning money. Those wouldn't work without a blanket allow permission.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

Yes, upon wear it begins animation there is no need to request permission...and it revokes better, it revokes simply by detaching it.  Done.  That IIStartAnimation script looks like it has bugs in it.  I'm glad I found a way to over-ride it.   Because mine works without bugs.  

I would love to see an example of your script that plays an animation without requesting permissions.

I would also love to see a case where an animation stops when the attachment is taken off without the script doing that explicitly.

48 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

Okay, I'm trying here...because when you pay a CasperVend object for your rental payments, it takes money from you and I think it gives you a transaction ID.  However, we are not the owners of the CasperVend object when we pay rent.  But, what I'm also saying is that we don't have to give permission to objects to take money from us...tipjars are objects, they take money...vendors are objects, they take money.  But, again, those objects don't have us as owner. 

The distinction is that vendors and tip jars don't "take" money. You "give" money, as in, the transaction is initiated by your viewer and not by any script.

48 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

So, it's basically you cannot pay an object if you are the owner of that object, but I'm wondering if a script can over-ride this "ownership" thing.  Some say it can but what kind of script.  Is LLTransferLindenDollars the only money script one can use in SL?  Because, it's seems to me that LLTransferLindenDollars has bugs in it too plus it's written very "scary".  

There are only two functions that can "take" money from you. llTransferLindenDollars and llGiveMoney (which is an older version of llTransferLindenDollars). They both have "scary" warnings because they can initiate transactions on their own at any time, as many times as they want, after the script has been given permission to do it once. That is a real concern no matter how useful those functions are.

The bottom line is that as things are right now, what you're suggesting is impossible. Whether or not something new could be suggested is another conversation, but I don't think you'll find many people voting for automatic debit-permissions.

Edited by Wulfie Reanimator
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Wulfie Reanimator said:

I would love to see an example of your script that plays an animation without requesting permissions.

I would also love to see a case where an animation stops when the attachment is taken off without the script doing that explicitly.

1 hour ago, FairreLilette said:

 

Okay...I remembered...it does 'ask' permission but in nearby chat window only; there is no drop down menu for the person to click.  So it just attaches and says 'permission granted' in the nearby chat window too...so you're right it kind of has a permission system but no need to click on anything (no drop down menu).  But it also doesn't have a drop down menu to revoke (stop) animations either...it just detaches and done...I didn't mean a script wasn't in there.  I just meant it's done without the hassle or the bugs of those menu drop downs too which is where I think the bugs are in those menus because if you don't see the menu, you can't figure out how to revoke permissions and it screws up a lot of people's animations.  But mine work without having to revoke.  Once detached, it just revokes.  And, it's not my script - I bought it on MP but it has no drop down menus and works great.  That permission thing is really not necessary and buggy because like I said if you don't revoke it wreaks havoc.  

45 minutes ago, Wulfie Reanimator said:

There are only two functions that can "take" money from you. llTransferLindenDollars and llGiveMoney (which is an older version of llTransferLindenDollars). They both have "scary" warnings because they can initiate transactions on their own at any time, as many times as they want, after the script has been given permission to do it once. That is a real concern no matter how useful those functions are.

Yes, I know but I still say those are mostly for things like contest boards where you shut if off with a config card...the owner of the object needs to know how to work it to shut it off such as when the contest is over.  My contest board has to be reset after every contest ends though and reset to a timer.  The script in the contest board must revoke the permission to allow continual taking of lindens because when contest ends, it shuts off.  I have to redo my config card for every contest or it doesn't work...so that script doesn't keep taking continually money from me.  See I don't pay the winners of the contest; the scripts in the contest board transfer lindens out of my account into the winners accounts.   <<<<And, this is why you need the transfer linden script as it transfers lindens from my account into the winners account.  If you aren't transfering lindens from your account into another account, you don't need that transferlindens script.  

I can't give you a copy of the script because I bought it; I didn't write it.  But you can try my free Dinkie Easter Basket Demo here to see there is no drop down menus if you are interested.  I think it just works better without the permission thing since there is no need to click anything to properly revoke because you never gave the script a proper permission either.  

https://marketplace.secondlife.com/p/DINKIE-Easter-Basket-DEMO-Two-Colors-to-Try/19061484

 

 

Edited by FairreLilette
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Wulfie Reanimator said:

I would also love to see a case where an animation stops when the attachment is taken off without the script doing that explicitly.

I have lots of attachments that I've scripted myself that trigger an animation when they're worn. And the animation stops when the object is detached, without any further intervention from the script. 

default
{
    attach (key id)
    {
        if (id) llRequestPermissions (id, PERMISSION_TRIGGER_ANIMATION);
    }

    run_time_permissions (integer permissions)
    {
        if (permissions & PERMISSION_TRIGGER_ANIMATION) llStartAnimation ("sit_ground");
    }
}

Only a tiny amount of code gets executed/time is allocated when the attach event is triggered by a detach, and not particularly reliably, either. I can't see any other place to put code that explicitly stops an animation on a detach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, FairreLilette said:

Okay...I remembered...it does 'ask' permission but in nearby chat window only; there is no drop down menu for the person to click.  So it just attaches and says 'permission granted'...so you're right it kind of has a permission system but no need to click on anything (no drop down menu).  But it also doesn't have a drop down menu to revoke (stop) animations either...it just detaches and done...I didn't mean a script wasn't in there.  I just meant it's done with the hassle or the bugs of those menu drop downs too which is where I think the bugs are in those menus because if you don't see the menu, you can't figure out how to revoke permissions and it screws up a lot of people's animations.  But mine work without having to revoke.  Once detached, it just revokes.  And, it's not my script - I bought it on MP but it has no drop down menus and works great.  That permission thing is really not necessary and buggy because like I said if you don't revoke it wreaks havoc.  

Let me think what I have that is copy and modify so you can see the script without having to purchase anything.  Well, currently nothing.  All my demos and free items are copy only. 

Trust me, I know very well how to write the scripts for the things you're talking about. I'm very experienced with LSL with a long history of helping others here and in-world.

Did you check the page I linked earlier? Here it is again: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/LlRequestPermissions

I'm starting to run out of ideas on how to communicate this to you any more clearly than I've already tried. Scripts have to request permissions for a lot of things or they will shout errors at you. Most permissions are granted automatically under certain circumstances:

  • Attachments will automatically get permissions to:
    • Replace animations (walking, standing, jumping, etc.)
    • Detach themselves from the avatar
  • Objects that you're sitting on OR wearing will automatically get permissions to:
    • Know where your camera is
    • Control your camera
    • Take control of your movement keys and keep track of them
    • Start and stop animations (dance balls, shopping bags, furniture, vehicles, weapons, etc.)

"Automatically" means that you won't see a dialog asking for permission. When the script makes a request with llRequestPermissions, the script will just instantly get the permissions it asked for without you even knowing that it tried to ask for it. For example, the "start animation on attach, stop on detach" script is basically this:

default
{
    on_rez(integer start_param)
    {
        llRequestPermissions(llGetOwner(), PERMISSION_TRIGGER_ANIMATION);
    }

    run_time_permissions(integer permissions)
    {
        if (permissions)
        {
            llOwnerSay("I was given permissions!");
        }
        else
        {
            llOwnerSay("Why are you mean to me?");
        }
    }
}

If you put that script into a box and then wear the box, you'll see what happens. If you then detach the box and rez it on the ground, you'll see that something different happens. (Note to other scripters: I wrote it the way I did intentionally.)

Edit: @KT Kingsley, there are some cases where an animation will get stuck during detach but I don't know off the top of my head what those cases are. I also know there's limited time during detach but certainly enough to stop at least one animation. (In my experience you get about 4 function calls' worth of time, not exact of course.)

Edited by Wulfie Reanimator
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Wulfie Reanimator said:

Scripts have to request permissions for a lot of things or they will shout errors at you. Most permissions are granted automatically under certain circumstances:

Okay..."a lot of things" but not all.  My animate on attach and stop animation on detach doesn't shout errors at all.  But, it's neither here nor there...my point was scripts can work without the permission thing and work better.  

Anyhow, this needs a new money script that's simpler because the permission of allow and revoke are very complicated for ordinary things...it's need is for contest boards with config cards so you can turn it off so it doesn't just keep giving out money although it actually shuts itself off until I reset the script and reset the config card.  The money permission to transfer ends when the contest ends and the lindens go from my account into the winners of the contests account.  

Maybe I'll submit a suggestion for a new money script because LLTransferLindens to ask permission before lindens are taken and/or for that permission to be revoked...it's for things like contest boards that work through a config card and it's very complicated and it's a rarely needed script. 

So, that to LLTransferLindens is not needed to purchase an item just because it exists the way it is.  A person would have to know how to revoke it after the transfer through a config card, and, so, again that transfer lindens script is for rare things like contest boards but it was not meant for every day things.  Unless that script is in vendors but I don't use vendors inworld (see my posts above for how I make the actual rezzed object the vendor itself and then set if for sale to either receive the contests of or a copy). 

The library needs another type of money script to move forward into the 21st Century because time is money to customers and when those customers don't want to take all that time and hassle with the way it is now, they lose sales.  

Plus, this thread was to discuss how this could be done; not to discuss the script itself.  

 

Edited by FairreLilette
  • Haha 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fairre ---  You're missing the point entirely.  Several highly qualified and experienced scripters have done their best to explain how the permissions system works and why it has to work that way.  Let me summarize one last time:

1. In order for a scripted object to transfer money from the owner's account, it must have permission from the script owner.

2. Whenever a script that transfers money needs PERMISSION_DEBIT , it automatically displays the big yellow "scary" warning box.

3. When a merchant sets up a vendor, that box is always displayed, because a vendor needs to be able to transfer from the merchant back to the buyer if the buyer pays the wrong amount or the transaction gets reversed.  The merchant owns the vendor, so she has to give it permission to send you L$ if necessary.

4. When you use a vendor, you don't see a PERMISSION_DEBIT warning because you are sending the money yourself.  You aren't authorizing some other person or a HUD to send money on your behalf.

5. However, If you owned a scripted object (HUD or standalone box) that is supposed to send someone else money for you, you would own it and you would have to give the HUD PERMISSION_DEBIT to transfer money.  That's because the HUD is not you.  It's a separate object that needs your permission to transfer money on your behalf.     

Quite aside from all of that, it is true, as Wulfie has explained, that some types of permissions are granted silently and automatically under some circumstances.  When you sit on an object or attach it, you are automatically granting it permission to animate you, for example. (The script still has to ask you for PERMISSION_TRIGGER_ANIMATION, but it's a quiet conversation between the script and your viewer.  You never see the request.)  Most permissions do not work that way, however. Specifically, PERMISSION_DEBIT can never be given silently and automatically. As we have all explained, that's just too risky, so the system does not allow it. If permission is not granted, the llGiveMoney and llTransferLindenDollars functions will refuse to work.  Scripters do not have any alternate ways around it.  The system is designed to prevent us from doing things that will take money from you without asking first.  As a scripter, I am extremely glad, because if I screw up and forget to have a script ask you permission, it simply won't work.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Rolig Loon said:

4. When you use a vendor, you don't see a PERMISSION_DEBIT warning because you are sending the money yourself.  You aren't authorizing some other person or a HUD to send money on your behalf.

Okay, this makes sense in a way; yet you are authorizing the vendor to send money on your behalf.

 

45 minutes ago, Rolig Loon said:

Specifically, PERMISSION_DEBIT can never be given silently and automatically. As we have all explained, that's just too risky, so the system does not allow it. If permission is not granted, the llGiveMoney and llTransferLindenDollars functions will refuse to work.  Scripters do not have any alternate ways around it.  The system is designed to prevent us from doing things that will take money from you without asking first.  As a scripter, I am extremely glad, because if I screw up and forget to have a script ask you permission, it simply won't work.

Well, when I think of this, with as you say "scripters do not have any alternate ways around it"...it makes it like it is set in stone forever and LL wrote themselves into a forever box.  But, it's set in stone that way because of possible scripter errors plus the other possibility of scammers, I'd assume.  

 

45 minutes ago, Rolig Loon said:

The system is designed to prevent us from doing things that will take money from you without asking first.  

But, what's confusing is the above is not true.  Vendors, tipjars, all kinds of things take our lindens without asking first.  Therefore, it does seem to have a disconnect somewhere and/or a gap is filled somehow.  Perhaps that main gap is CasperVend and it's system with a transaction number, etc....but it never asks if it can take money from me.  

Oh well, it seems LL has written themselves into a forever box they cannot get out of.  The only thing that saved LL from it's forever box is CasperVend then.  

Edited by FairreLilette
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rolig Loon said:

5. However, If you owned a scripted object (HUD or standalone box) that is supposed to send someone else money for you, you would own it and you would have to give the HUD PERMISSION_DEBIT to transfer money.  That's because the HUD is not you.  It's a separate object that needs your permission to transfer money on your behalf.     

Okay Rolig...it's this one.  It's the ownership of the object - the hypothetical PURCHASE HUD or PURCHASE VENDOR would be owned by each of us.

It's like my contest board.  I own my contest board.  I have to authorize it (via scripts and config cards) to take money out of my account and transfer the monies to the winner(s) and give it what is called "Permission_Debit" by accepting.  So, yes, it's all about the ownership thing of the object itself.   I see now.  Oh well...it was worth a try.  I was also wondering why it was never tried before...I can see the reason why now.  There isn't a work-around because of ownership.  

Edited by FairreLilette
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Wulfie Reanimator said:

I would also love to see a case where an animation stops when the attachment is taken off without the script doing that explicitly.

4 hours ago, FairreLilette said:

 

I don't know what this means exactly?  The animation just stops after I right click on the object in the inventory and choose DETACH and then the animation stops.  I'm not talking about auto attach and detach things.  This is manually attach/detach done through one's inventory.  (Sorry quote thing not working again - read top name and quote not my name).

Here is a link to the DEMO of my Dinkie Easter Baskets, you can get the demo and see how it works.  It's free if you are interested.  

https://marketplace.secondlife.com/p/DINKIE-Easter-Basket-DEMO-Two-Colors-to-Try/19061484

Edited by FairreLilette
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, FairreLilette said:

But, what's confusing is the above is not true.  Vendors, tipjars, all kinds of things take our lindens without asking first.  Therefore, it does seem to have a disconnect somewhere and/or a gap is filled somehow.  Perhaps that main gap is CasperVend and it's system with a transaction number, etc....but it never asks if it can take money from me.  

When you pay something in world, you're automatically granting permission to take money from you by doing the act of paying.

The vendors and tip jars need permissions from their owners to pay money back to you if something goes wrong.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Wulfie Reanimator said:

I would love to see an example of your script that plays an animation without requesting permissions.

 

Pick up a demo of one of the newer releases from Catwa. The shopping bag it comes in has a hold animation that plays without asking permission, and stops automatically when you detach the bag. It's awkward, because their shopping bags now attach as a hud, but the animation still plays so now you're standing there looking like holding nothing. I noticed it with the free head I picked up yesterday, and can confirm that it did not request permission when worn (but it does when rezzed on the ground).

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Maitimo said:

Pick up a demo of one of the newer releases from Catwa. The shopping bag it comes in has a hold animation that plays without asking permission, and stops automatically when you detach the bag. It's awkward, because their shopping bags now attach as a hud, but the animation still plays so now you're standing there looking like holding nothing. I noticed it with the free head I picked up yesterday, and can confirm that it did not request permission when worn (but it does when rezzed on the ground).

All my wearable animated stuff I have NO requests for permissions in them and they work better that way because if you don't accept permission for it animate your avatar, then you don't have to revoke permission because if you don't see the menu to revoke permission, it wrecks havoc and causes a bunch of hassles where you might have to look to stop animations, etc.  It doesn't need permission, it's like wear and detach from yourself, clothes or anything else you wear on your avatar...it's just mine have animations in them.  For my Dinkie magic wands, you can hover like a fairy or daydream upon attach without the need for requesting permission.  And, then when you detach it from yourself, the animations stop.  No menus, no accept/revoke.  

I put a link to my Dinkie Easter Basket DEMO (above post in this thread) which is free...it has a swing arm animation in it.  No need for accept/revoke.  Just add it and then when you are done, choose detach from yourself in your inventory as you would clothing.  

Edited by FairreLilette
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Maitimo said:

Pick up a demo of one of the newer releases from Catwa. The shopping bag it comes in has a hold animation that plays without asking permission, and stops automatically when you detach the bag. It's awkward, because their shopping bags now attach as a hud, but the animation still plays so now you're standing there looking like holding nothing. I noticed it with the free head I picked up yesterday, and can confirm that it did not request permission when worn (but it does when rezzed on the ground).

Nope.  I already explained that to Fairre yesterday. When you wear or sit on an object, PERMISSION_TRIGGER_ANIMATION is granted automatically and silently. The script still has to ask for permission, but you never see the request yourself. 

710640a881965cee5dfb73b483bc7a27.png

As you can see from this table, the same is true for PERMISSION_TAKE_CONTROLS, PERMISSION_TRACK_CAMERA, PERMISSION_CONTROL_CAMERA, and  (under some conditions) PERMISSION_ATTACH and PERMISSION_OVERRIDE_ANIMATIONS.  All of the other possible permissions will pop up a little box that asks you to grant permission explicitly.  Those silent, automatic permissions are low-risk ones that will not end up affecting your L$ balance, disrupting objects, or changing access to land. If they didn't work that way, many common things like AOs would be impossible or at least very annoying to use.  PERMISSION_DEBIT, on the other hand, is made deliberately obvious and annoying to keep it from being abused. 

Whether permissions are automatic or not, a script must still request them in order to affect the flow of operations from one set of commands in the script to another. Under some circumstances, a clumsy or inexperienced scripter can get away with not asking for an automatically-granted permission, but risks the chance that the script will fail. Under those circumstances, the script will still shout an error message.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Maitimo said:

Pick up a demo of one of the newer releases from Catwa. The shopping bag it comes in has a hold animation that plays without asking permission, and stops automatically when you detach the bag. It's awkward, because their shopping bags now attach as a hud, but the animation still plays so now you're standing there looking like holding nothing. I noticed it with the free head I picked up yesterday, and can confirm that it did not request permission when worn (but it does when rezzed on the ground).

What you see or experience as an end-user is no testament to what the script is actually doing.

You are literally oblivious. Refer to the script I provided above.

Edited by Wulfie Reanimator
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 531 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...