Transferring ownership of deeply nested scripts which need PERMISSION_CHANGE_LINKS ?

Any suggestions welcome ...

I have several objects which are built a bit like russian dolls, object within object within object etc.

3 or 4 layers down there are objects which require PERMISSION_CHANGE_LINKS.

This makes it extremely difficult to transfer ownership without requiring the new owner to assemble a complex structure. Because as far as I'm aware, that new owner would be required to give permission for the scripted linking ?

If you understand what I'm talking about please suggest methods to make it easier to transer these objects ...

Or is there simply no easy way to do this transfer ?

You can try firing off an llGetOwner in the on_rez or state_entry events in each of the "matrushkas".

Could you elaborate please ...



... unless you are suggesting perhaps that I, as creator have given permission, therefore somehow it is not required to ask the new owner ? ... there's an idea ! but I'm pretty sure llBreakLink() would silently fail ... mmm

What prevents the script from asking the new owner for link permissions? I think what Aodhan was suggesting was to check the current owner every time it's rezzed, and if you find that the owner has changed (because you had saved the previous owner's key in a variable, and that doesn't match the current owner any more), ask the new owner for link change permissions.

What is the logic behind PERMISSION_CHANGE_LINKS even existing? Why is it necessary that the owner have to grant permission for linking and unlinking prims?

indeed! pita

nothing prevents it, and that is the problem ...


please read my original post properly

yep ... just tested, llBreakLink() fails. Every new owner must be asked to give permission as I already knew but needed to confirm just to be sure.

As far as I can see the only way to transfer objects as I described is to break them up and have the new owner rebuild them.

For some people this is fine, but in my experience most SL users simply are not capable of doing this correctly and I'd get a real headache with support.

Well, seems to me that asking for permissions and then having the scripts rebuild the object, would be simpler for the user than expecting him to manually rebuild it himself. But I have probably misunderstood the application and how it's used, so maybe you're not talking about a manual rebuild at all.

Having scripts rebuild the object is certainly an option that's better than manually rebuilding and is such a simple idea that it went right past me !

I think this can be done but would require some thought to get it all put together correctly. These permissions are still a pita though ! I'll look into this idea in more depth.

Thank you

LOL. I was so sure that you were talking about scripted rebuilding, that I figured my post really didn't contribute anything at all, which is why I deleted it

I expect that scripted re-building will be pretty complicated to implement, because you'll have to move the prims into the right positions/rotations, etc. etc. I've never tried anything like that. But if you can figure it out, it should be simpler from a "user experience" point of view.

I was wondering where the heck it went ! There I was hitting the refresh button ... I'm working on one of these things atm, so i'm keeping an eye on this thread




yep

Sorry, I dont see the problem. My code just checks for the link/delink permissions and if not available, asks for them, then continues with a listener on run_time_permissions(integer perm) which in turn calls x.

If permissions are set, then the code calls x directly.

My landbot just generates a hud dialog box:

"Landbot65", an object owned by ed44 Gupte, would like to:

Link and delink from other objects

Is this ok?

Yes Button        No Button

Hope my customers will be able to click the yes button lol

mmm I can see that.

Imagine an object, in the inventory of anothe object which is in the inventory of another object which is in the inventory of another object...

the deepest object needs link permission. So this means the fully built object cannot be transferred as one piece.

The problem is not with the asking of the permission or the presentation of a permissions request. It's with the way in which the permissions system is implemented. I have to break up a complex object because it cannot be transferred to another owner fully built. Get it ?

It looks like the idea of having a script to rebuild the object after being transferred is the only work around.

Hi Laukosargas

Still not sure what the problem is so I must be a bit dense. I can see that if you transfer the object all linked up the permissions you gave it probably will not work for the new owner, but your object would simply check for permissions everytime. After transfer that would fail and your object would simply ask the new owner. Just another click?

If you give a more concrete example I can check that against my alt and give you a better answer.

Ed

Ummm ... I can't keep repeating the same things over and over again ...

It isn't just another click at all! I repeat .... the objects are DEEPLY nested in each others inventories. The DEEPEST object requires the permission. So this means the new owner has to TAKE THE OBJECT APART in order to give the permission. The problem is NOT with the getting and giving of the permission, that works perfectly I am extremely experienced with LSL the problem is with TRANSFER caused by a noxious unneeded LSL permission requirement.

One thing I didn't mention is an added complication that the object is copied, rezzed and dies 100s of times a day. So asking for permission each time is completely out of the question. It can be and IS only ever asked for once.

I suggest you try to make an object as I described, then give it to someone else and see if they can make it work. Most people, as I've said can't follow instructions and find it difficult to assemble simple structures let alone a russian doll of prims which have to go into each other in the correct order.

Anyway it's old news now as it appears the only solution is to make a script that assembles it for the new owner and gets the permissions just the one time as it should. Such an obvious solution !