[sldev] Re: More client forwarded chat channels.

[Able Whitman]

I meant that I wasn't keen on reserving a channel just for the purposes of
allowing scriptable muting of objects. General-purpose client channels are a
good idea, though.

As long as it uses the same chat mechanism as channel 0 chat, so that the
viewer can identify the chatting object and its owner, etc., then I am all
in favor of it. I'd like to also see a way to have the client monitor the
amount of chat traffic on the reserved channels, though, and be able to mute
objects that spam them. The last thing we need is for griefers (or just
buggy scripts) to induce client-side lag by clogging these channels with
spam.

On 6/21/07, Jason Giglio <gigstaggart at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Able Whitman wrote:
> > That's a really interesting idea, but I'm not really keen about
> > reserving a "special" chanel for only the viewer to listen on. Plus,
>
> I am.
>
> > which channel do you choose? It doesn't seem possible to guarantee that
> > that the channel you pick won't already be used by some existing script
> > somewhere. In practice this probably isn't an issue, but I'd much rather
>
> It doesn't matter one bit.  Soft and I discussed this, and she thinks a
> range might be more useful, say 32 or 64 channels.  There's no security
> implication since anyone with an LSL script can already effectively
> listen to these channels.  I suggest near the top of the range around
> MAX_INT, going down from DEBUG_CHANNEL.
>
> Any LSL script using it can continue to use it, no harm done.
>
> -Jason
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.secondlife.com/pipermail/sldev/attachments/20070621/39809d2c/attachment.htm