|
Andreas Frankfurter
Registered User
Join date: 15 Jul 2006
Posts: 18
|
10-23-2006 10:37
I d appreciate any ideas on a way to issue a command when an object is manually deleted by the owner.
Only way I could figure out which is very resource intensive, instructing my "server object" to check via llEmail if the "client object" is still there.
Considering there s hundreds of "client objects" this would take a LONG time. (20sec Sleep per llEmail)
I ve considered llEmailing with several scripts too, to make the process faster but it still isn t a "clean" solution imo.
The general idea is when a "clientobject" is deleted to send a command to the "server" telling it it was deleted.
Thanks in advance for any input to this subject.
|
|
HtF Visconti
Registered User
Join date: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 123
|
10-23-2006 10:50
I too asked not so long ago if there were "famous last words" an object could utter before it went into oblivion - unfortunately this does not seem to be the case. Depending on true inworld or hybrid inworld/offworld solutions you can only try to bypass things. The ideas I have been tossing around so far: 1. Object rezzes a little invisible scanner that moderately scans for its parent. If parent is no longer detected it sends an email and kills itself. This is an active, although time delayed way. 2. Object contacts in fixed intervals a webserver and calls a PHP page. PHP updates variable (last time checked). Controller contacts webserver and gets last contact time - controller can decide if too much time has passed already and act accordingly. Problem with server downtime and general SL -> offworld communication. 3. Like 2,. but using email in regular intervals to the controller. Advantage is that it is a 100% inworld solution. 4. If objects are within shouting distance one could also have the controller shout a message every x minutes/seconds as check who is replying. Or vice versa - the two ugly choices - either many open listeners or many active timer events. 
|
|
Andreas Frankfurter
Registered User
Join date: 15 Jul 2006
Posts: 18
|
10-23-2006 10:54
Thanks a lot for the quick answer.
I will try the invisible scanner method sounds like the most efficient way to do it without bombarding my webserver with updates.
|