|
Felix Oxberger
Registered User
Join date: 24 Mar 2006
Posts: 21
|
03-30-2006 17:33
Here a link to my previous post in this thread: /139/8c/97269/1.htmlAnd heres a link to to my thread in the Technical Issues forum which actually allows me to respond: /111/63/97193/1.htmlTorley Linden said: "Felix--this sounds expected based on what you told me. Permissions are set restrictively for "Next Owner". If you make something, set it to be (no modify) (no copy) and then give it to a friend, if they give it back, it will remain (no modify) (no copy) and you can't change it. Even if you made it in the first place. So, if you created the house, perhaps you have a backup you can restore from? Best of hope with it." Thnaks for your reply Torley. I understand that the way the system is currently programed this is the expected behaviour. However, the behaviour is this way since this scenario was not contemplated in the design. If (current_user == owner & owner == creator) then allow_modify = true; end; else <existing code> end; Do you not agree that this is correct? I am/was a developer, product manager for a company whose director liked to say "The customer is always wrong." So I understand how this looks from both sides of the fence. What I would like is: 1. Agreement that this code issue needs to be resolved. 2. A timeframe for resolution. 3. and/or assistance in resolving my immediate problem. Thanks |
|
Torley Linden
Enlightenment!
Join date: 15 Sep 2004
Posts: 16,530
|
03-30-2006 17:49
I see you've got more questions in the Technical Issues section, Felix... I'll go reply there as to not inconvenience you hopping back and forth. ^_^
|
|
Kelly Linden
Linden Developer
Join date: 29 Mar 2004
Posts: 896
|
03-30-2006 20:58
This behavior is as intended, and for reason, not because we havn't 'fixed it'. Sorry, I know that is not what you wanted to hear.
The overall permissions of an object are based on many things including all the linked parts and any items in the contents of any linked part. Here is a scenario we support, but which is causing you a headache:
ResidentA creates an object - a motorcycle. ResidentA decides to get a professional texture job on the motor bike, so gives it to ResidentB. ResidentB then does their usual splendid job of texturing. Before giving the object back ResidentB sets the object to No Modify so that the textures can not be stolen from the object, or they set to 'No Transfer' so that ResidentA isn't off selling ResidentB's work, or sets it No Copy because ResidentA only paid for 1 texture job. Or some other reason. Then ResidentB gives it back to ResidentA.
The change that would help you recover from your mistake in permissions would make none of the above possible because as soon as ResidentB handed the item back, ResidentA would have full permission to do anything they want - take the textures for use elsewhere, make a thousand copies of the motercycle and sell them all. At the same time, the current way does allow what you want, but it does require being very careful about permissions and checking that all permissions are right before any and all transfers.
It does suck that permissions mistakes like yours happen, and it sucks even more that they are not reversible. As with any work done on a computer it is highly recommended to save often so that these mistakes can be recovered from.
_____________________
- Kelly Linden
|