[sldev] How Asset server handles saving of scripts

[Gordon Wendt]

That would actually be pretty nice (similar to what google does now) however
I doubt we'll ever see it just because of the changes that would have to be
made to implement it on the backend, the ui, and the client, it just boggles
the mind.

On Dec 19, 2007 5:33 PM, Argent Stonecutter <secret.argent at gmail.com> wrote:

> Do people frequently hit "save" and then make some changes and hit
> "save" again without waiting to see the results of the first set of
> changes? I do that occasionally, but hardly often enough that sending
> extra packets to cancel uploads would be a net win?
>
> Or is this about some automated process, such as saving in the
> background to improve reliability, so that changes to the script are
> saved? I don't think that automatically saving assets in the
> background is a good idea for a number of reasons. It would be better
> to automatically save open scripts to a local file, and give the user
> a way to request they be re-uploaded when the asset issues are resolved.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.secondlife.com/pipermail/sldev/attachments/20071219/951cba75/attachment.htm