On Oct 1, 2010, at 12:50 PM, Gigs wrote:
> On 09/29/2010 07:06 PM, Kelly Linden wrote:
>> * In my mind the biggest issue is that mono scripts will appear 4x worse
>> than LSL scripts. This is really the reason I am hesitant to push a
>> function like this through before we have the ability for mono scripts
>> to better reflect how much memory they may use. We need more development
>> time for any solution on that front. Right now because a mono script
>> could use 64k, that is the only number we have available to count. Maybe
>> it would be nice to have an API to access number of scripts, number of
>> LSL vs. Mono scripts, amount of memory used and script time used.
>> However we rapidly get away from my desired philosophy of minimal
>> interfaces.
>
>
> Don't overcomplicate things. Just count mono scripts as 16k as well.
> The average size of them is less than 16k, so it's still a conservative
> number.
>
> We don't need perfection. The person with 255 scripts in each shoe will
> still show up as using a lot. Splitting hairs over kilobyte perfect
> accuracy is pointless.
>
I don't actually have an opinion about the right answer, but I will note that
if this is going to be used for things like banning people, then we can't ever
change it to be something accurate later. The pattern we see is:
* We build something that has a numeric limit
* Someone builds something that pushes right to the limit
* We change something, and the thing that used to work no longer works
* People scream that we broke content
So if we create a call that returns approximate results now, it *always* has to
return the same results.
This is one reason we are reluctant to add new measurements; people come to
depend on them even when they shouldn't.
Q
_______________________________________________
Policies and (un)subscribe information available here:
http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev
Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
