[sldev] MONO: region request.

[Periapse Linden]

As Josh observes there were multiple issues with the beta grid today. I
believe all are resolved now.

Some of the login woes were due to backbone / presence issues. But the
Teen issue was different. The beta viewer is based on 1.18.6 code, which
includes the now vilified web-based login form. For teens to log on to
the beta grid they had to specify a start location, one of two teen
regions on aditi. But that smelly old viewer has a bug which improperly
parses region specifications with spaces in the name.

Yeah, we need a new beta grid viewer -- waiting until 1.20 stabilizes
before we add the Mono UI to it for the beta grid. In the meantime Milo
Linden simply added a telehub to the teen region. It now pulls them in
automatically, without them having to use the broken specify region form.

--Per

Joshua Bell wrote:
> There was also a glitch where expired presence wasn't being cleared
> properly on the beta grid, which has been fixed. That may have been
> contributing to the troubles as well.
>
> Periapse Linden wrote:
>> I'll check this out. I also am getting reports by various adult and TG
>> residents of login issues. This is complicated by the fact that the
>> aditi backbone was down until Babbage discovered it before the morning
>> Mono office hour and fixed it. However I've heard reports even since
>> then of people still being unable to successfully log in with the beta
>> viewer, however they *can* log in to the beta grid using a Release or RC
>> viewer. In all cases so far these are people who recently downloaded the
>> beta viewer (as in last couple of days). I've not heard of problems from
>> people who downloaded the beta viewer more than a week ago.
>>
>> It's possible that something got wedged. On Friday the aging
>> 1.18.6.77968 beta viewer was replaced with one built off of the 1.20
>> codebase. Sadly, that new viewer lacked the Mono UI.  The beta viewer
>> download has been reverted back to the 1.18.6.77968 one, but maybe some
>> setting got missed. I will re-download and install the beta viewer and
>> try to dupe the problems I've been hearing about.
>>
>> --Periapse
>>
>> Tateru Nino wrote:
>>  
>>> A lot of people tell me they're having login problems with certain
>>> viewer versions. It's all anecdotal at the moment, though. Just under
>>> a hundred or so reports, which isn't statistically huge.
>>>
>>> Brandon Husbands wrote:
>>>    
>>>> Trying to get on to the beta grid for office hours but not able to
>>>> log in, anyone else having issues?
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 12:03 PM, Periapse Linden
>>>> <periapse at lindenlab.com <mailto:periapse at lindenlab.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>     Yes, Tateru, as you say there are two different runtimes, LSL2 and
>>>>     Mono. At launch the Mono runtime will be completely "opt-in": any
>>>>     LSL script that you created or have modify permission for may be
>>>>     compiled to Mono. From then on the script will run only under Mono
>>>>     (unless recompiled again back to LSL2). We need this opt-in
>>>>     paradigm because although Mono is feature compatible with LSL2,
>>>>     the same script will have different behaviors and characteristics
>>>>     depending on which runtime it uses. The simple performance
>>>>     differences between the two runtimes mean that scripts change
>>>>     behavior, and may need modification to be useful when they switch
>>>>     to Mono.
>>>>
>>>>     Thus in order to not break existing content, we want to ship with
>>>>     both runtimes, and keep Mono opt-in. Eventually we may turn off
>>>>     compilation to LSL2 bytecode. This will make Mono automatic for
>>>>     all new script content, however we are unlikely to turn off the
>>>>     LSL2 runtime on the entire grid. There are simply too many
>>>>     scripts, actively running in the world, whose creators have left
>>>>     SL or who don't want to QA and release a Mono version.
>>>>
>>>>     The idea which started this thread was a suggestion to allow
>>>>     estate or parcel owners the ability to selectively turn off only
>>>>     the LSL2 runtime.  This would mean that scripted attachments using
>>>>     LSL2 would silently fail to run, much like the way the current "no
>>>>     scripts" switch works, but only for LSL2. I see merit in the
>>>>     suggestion, but I think it's simply too early to know if such a
>>>>     feature would be truly useful. Mono definitely improves the
>>>>     performance dramatically for scripts that do a lot of math, but
>>>>     has much more humble returns for simple scripts like AOs or
>>>>     attachment size/color modders. After Mono launches market pressure
>>>>     will develop to encourage scripters to make Mono versions
>>>>     available for those calculation intensive scripts that most
>>>>     benefit from Mono. This process, a kind of natural selection, may
>>>>     obviate the utility of a selective LSL2 disabler. Let's discuss
>>>>     this feature again after we see how Mono is adopted post launch.
>>>>
>>>>     Any who want more details on our current thinking, plans, or who
>>>>     want to discuss this feature request, or propose others, are
>>>>     welcome to attend our Mono office hours. See the Mono beta
>>>>     <https://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Mono_beta_FAQ> wiki page for the
>>>>     schedule.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>     Tateru Nino wrote:
>>>>      
>>>>>     Robin Cornelius wrote:
>>>>>        
>>>>>>     On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 1:43 PM, Nik Radford
>>>>>>     <nik at terminaldischarge.net> <mailto:nik at terminaldischarge.net>
>>>>>>     wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>              
>>>>>>>      I don't see why this is something that couldn't at least be
>>>>>>>     considered.
>>>>>>>      Something like an option in the region estate tools "Enable
>>>>>>>     LSL2 Runtime
>>>>>>>      for region" and "Enable Mono Runtime for region" with tick
>>>>>>>     boxes and such.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>                     
>>>>>>     I though, but am probably wrong, that the mono runtime emulates
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>     lsl2 runtime for mono regions so that lsl2 on a mono region is
>>>>>>     basically wrapped my mono and i recall (but again may have
>>>>>>     imagined)
>>>>>>     that even doing this was faster than the native lsl2 engine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Please correct me if i have gone mad.
>>>>>>                 
>>>>>     Two different runtimes. One for LSL source compiled to Mono
>>>>>     bytecode and one for LSL source compiled to LSL2 bytecode. That,
>>>>>     as I understand it, is where we're headed in the near-term. Each
>>>>>     sim having two script runtimes.
>>>>>
>>>>>         
>>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>>     Click here to unsubscribe or manage your list subscription:
>>>>     /index.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Click here to unsubscribe or manage your list subscription:
>>>> /index.html
>>>>         
>> _______________________________________________
>> Click here to unsubscribe or manage your list subscription:
>> /index.html
>>   
>