llListen Efficiency

[Sayrah Parx]

Is it more efficient to have something like this:

 

state_entry()
{
    llListen(12345, "Object 1", "", "");
    llListen(12345, "Object 2", "", "");
    llListen(12345, "Object 3", "", "");
}

listen(integer channel, string name, key id, string message)
{
    do_something();
}

Instead of something like this:

 

state_entry()
{
    llListen(12345, "", "", "");
}

listen(integer channel, string name, key id, string message)
{
    if ((name == "Object 1") || (name == "Object 2") || (name == "Object 3"))
    {
        do_something();
    }
} 

 

Or is it always better to have fewer listens, even when the listens are narrowly defined?

[Rolig Loon]

There's less load on the servers if you do your filtering in the script itself instead of making the servers do it three times.  My solution would be something like

default{    state_entry()    {        llListen(12345,"","","");    }    listen (integer channel, string name key id, string msg)    {        if (~llListFindList(["Object 1","Object 2","Object 3"],[name]))        {            //Do something        }    }}

 

[Dora Gustafson]

Define "better"!
One will be better under some conditions the other under others:smileyhappy:

The question rightly belongs in the LSL Scripting forum