Hey LL, Listen Up, Suggestion inside about llRequestAgentData

[Azurion Darkfold]

Instead of breaking the llRequestAgentData for all the online indicators, why not simply recode it to act like the "Grant" "Deny" functions of tip jars. Give the person in question the CHOICE to be viewed as offline or online by something. Big menu

"Do you want to allow [X Device] Owned by [X Person] To see if you're online or not?"  [Yes] [No] [Mute]

Simple as that. Granted, I'm not a scripter or a coder, but I'll bet that doing this will make far more people happy than the people you're about to piss off by breaking that.

[Sassy Romano]

I was just thinking pretty much exactly the same.  I don't think it could be done quite how you suggest but certainly a global on/off, same as the viewer tag really.

"Allow my status to be reported to scripts"  Checked/Unchecked.  End of drama!

Or simply, if you have your status to show "offline", then just mirror that function with the script during that time too.

It's not hard really but then this is the week where LL teams are competing internally to turn out the dumbest feature change possible.  So far there are two top challengers.

Here's an old JIRA suggesting exactly this https://jira.secondlife.com/browse/VWR-2978

Note that it's marked as minor and "needs more info".  How hard could it be, just fix the actual problem and not break everything around it.

[Ansariel Hiller]

Oz Linden pointed out at the TPV meeting, that it wouldn't be possible because of "performance reasons".

[Sassy Romano]

I would be inclined to refute that.

I can understand that's the case where repeated calls are made from objects such as mailers but for a single call there's no extra load than there ever was.  Dealing with the need to determine an avatars online state in a consistent and appropriate manner while applying throttling to processes that are deemed "abusive" would be a better solution.

[Miranda Umino]

It s not needful .

 

If someone wants to allow the others to see his status , he can use/create a 2 lines script  checking his status and writing it in a channel .

As he is the owener/creator of teh script , this function will work , and the status could be readen by those who read the channel

 

Better , this cript can check the status of his owner and  be visible by specific persons ( for instance the closer friends of the owner ) ( 3 lines of script maybe ? )

 

In fact , you can always broadcast your status , but you can couldn t broadcast the status of others

[Azurion Darkfold]

yeah, you can write a script, but what about the boards in places that the owner of that particluar company owns, the ones that show an employees online status so that they can be paged when needed. Even if the maker of the script makes said script and gives it to the owner of the boards to put it in said board, it will stop working.

[Miranda Umino]

I don t see any problems .

But your process won t work of course .

 

An another proces could be for instance :

every employee is owner of a prim with a simple script  with a http listener

the company has the list of urls of the prims of each employee 

The company contacts each url . The url checks the status of its owner and gives the result to the company

 

Of course we need to change the scripts , and so ? Not an huge problem . We , scripters , have met  more difficult scripts to update in the past .. It s very quick to do , trust me ..

 

[Rayne Keynes]

Yes, thats it, lets add more script load and communication lag than existed with the old system, thats the solution. All so some insecure people can have their "feel good" fix that will do absolutely nothing to enhance or enforce their imagined "privacy".

[Danny Nolan]

Performance reasons? Adding an extra bolean to the script would cause performance issues? Wat?

[Miranda Umino]

Wrong .

1stly , you have not more script loads . Because the scripts are dispatched in several sims . If you need to check if an avatar is online in the same sim , the llgeteagenzize(avatar) avoids these communications and is less laggy than a call to dataserver

2ndly no , you have less communication lag : there are not a lot of machines who can answer a dataserver .  It creates bottlenecks and so critical lag . There are plent of machines who can answer an http  . So there won t be a bottleneck as easily as with dataserver events