Whatever happened to llTextBox?

It seems that it should be totally trivial to code since the dialog stuff is all there - and would be extremely useful. If it's still in design I'd probably suggest llInputText(key id, string prompt, integer channel) would be the preferable signature (the buttons would always be "OK" and "Cancel"/"Ignore" so no need to specify those).

Jira seems to say it's been "coming" since early this year. Anyone got an update?

/esc

Apparently it was implemented and tested in the server code, but hasn't been more than stubbed in the client. "Unfortunately" it was announced to us in release notes and "leaked" to the public before it was ready. So yes, all us scripters have seen quite clearly in the bright light of day how long it takes to get out even a minor UI feature to the client.

Since I've been dabbling in the client code recently, I'm more than half tempted to design and publish a patch the Linden team might find inspiring. Heh.

Not sure.


Although why would you need it? Just using llDialog with an empty list works essentially the same way.

I thought llTextBox allowed the user to type something in to a blue pop-up..

edit: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/LlTextBox

But doesn't allow/return a user-typed text entry - now you perhaps see why the function should be named llInputText not llTextBox.

It should be llTextBox(key id, string message, string prompt, integer channel).

I'd like to specify both a message and a possibly a pre-typed string for them. :>

leaked? have they seen their half arsed clients for the last few years !?! leaked??? what could possibly be buggered up with a chat box dedicated to a channel in a blue window

(head explodes)

as you couldnt tell i havent been keeping up with this, i thought it was in there already

me pats Osgeld on the head and gives him a cookie(chocolate chip)

If you were really bored, you could do this.

I don't know if any existing UI elements for blue dialogs contain lineeditor members or whatnot, or if you can just toss them in directly.. If you can, you could rig up a special button message case that would instead trigger a text box dialog, and maybe reuse the existing callback, which I don't remember the workings of.

I dunno, maybe the reason they're slow about it is because they want to implement a separate packet to make it work, which would hopefully also give a prompt field to allow existing text to be put into the text box.

Or maybe they just have more important stuff to work on.

/me scurries off to the corner with a cookie and a glass of milk, nibbling like a mouse who has been given his first substantial morsel, all the long being starved on false hopes

in the past I've worked around this by having a dialog button that says "custom..." and that gives an instruction to type the message to chat, opens a listen, and closes after the first thing it gets from them.... the only real lack of benifit here is the extra stepp and the fact that it spams public chat (yes I considered adding channel command instructions, but it confuses users especially on numeric input)

yea but its kinda like having vista, and being prompted to enter a dos command

i guess i dont mind, i use linux where that is the norm, but its 2008, most computer users are only used to typing whatever they want, and this is "cutting edge" why not have it already

I dread my changeup to Vista.... not only does the whole operating system seem paranoid (did I say seem? hah!) but all the crap it does behind your back seems to be designed not only to limit functionality, but to grind your cpu and motherboard to dust with constant (pointless) polling... I'd swear it was designed in principle by ronald reagan, an orthodox ascetic, and some guy in a tinfoil hat, if I didn't know that it was a colaboration of media execs, money hungry lawyers, and someone who's already rich enough to buy several countries outright... funny that the result is the same though

Some references:




Although, I never have seen a single comment from a Linden that would indicate that they are at all interested in Resident's opinions.

Look into Windows 7. I am going to start beta testing it first part of next year and production release should be at end of 2009. Vista works alright if you are a single user with new programs and equipment. But it does not play well in a corporate environment where the various engineering programs may be several years old for example. Percentage of corporate users who have made the switch to Vista is very small. The buzz I am hearing is that many people are in the same boat I am in and are extremely interested in getting into the beta test. Hopefully this means we will not have to wait for the 2nd service pact to have a good, usable product.

To me, this is going to be like skipping Millenium and going from Windows 98 to XP.

I may just bump up to XPpro64 in the meantime, but support for it is.... lacking. something tells me that & is still going to have all the crappy constant polling even if it's not locked down so bad... the sad thing is, all those fun new 'features' for content protection were broken inside of a month by users (not hackers) because crippleware prevented them from doing perfect legitimate things.

New name, same crappy product. Wanna bet?

yes

and maybe not as bad ... it seems to not take your cray and drop it to a 486, its less bloaty on the hardware at runtime

so please tell me they tossed out that horrendous interface? talk about bloat and waste...

Anyway... does anyone have any idea WHEN llTextBox will be released at the viewer? I've "waited" on it for months - it seems fairly trivial but extremely useful. Why the hold up? When is it finally going to hit the viewer?

/esc

No idea on anything related to TextBox


In the mean time, I'm going to be the unique one and say that I happily run Windows Vista without any problems, and I am strongly against Apple. Both the computers and the company itself.


Woot for Microsoft

WOW - how interesting. I don't suppose you work for M$ do you?

I like the fast response of the blue ugly dialog, but the static placement as well as being far oversized encompassing valuable pixel real estate and that it doesn't really offer much purpose, all add up to a bad design.


Offtpic: I hate Apple and their silly proprietary software ways, as well as Vista and its pointless resource waste.. I happily run most of my time on a slimmed down version of XP.

Apple Philosophy: users are stupid, pretty pictures are better than options
Microsoft Philosophy (as of Vista): users are stupid, suck up resources to hide the options.
*nix Philosophy: if you can't do it yourself, you're stupid.

choose your brand of stupidity

main complaint with apple: proprietary merchandise stifles real creativity and reduces options, regardless of the ad copy. bonus: you'll look cool in art classes and you can teach your granmother to use it without it blowing up.

microsoft: taking all the wrong ideas from apple, slap a pretty face on it, assume the user doesn't want to do anything (by asking 50 times), and then go behind the users back.... while sucking up resources in bloat, and lining our partners pockets. bonus: you don't have to guess whether a piece of software will works, everyone writes for M$.

*nix: great if you happen to be a programmer, and like compiling everything yourself, otherwise you're basicly screwed. bonus: pretty much anything you want is free... unless it's logo'd (so not many major games or named suites, but lots of replacements)

Fresh popcorn if anyone wants some.