On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 08:07:47AM -0500, Darrius Gothly wrote: > LL really should consider an option on an Object called "Do Not Suspend",
Hey - but they're going to do what they want anyway, as always. For a short time I had the hope that this would be the exception, since in this case there are coders involved... but it turns out that everything was already set in stone anyway (well, the most important things anyway). There is not going to a dynamic limits, so you don't have to worry about suspension :/. Anyway, maybe opensim will implement dynamic limits (no doubt they will, limits are needed and the fixed limits are ridiculous). In that case I agree with you that there needs to be a method to mark objects that they may not be suspended. This is one of the cases (there are more) where users of objects should be able to set flags on no-mod objects. This is a major issue imho. There are lots of things that the owner of a no-mod should have control over, but can't because of the way no-mod is implemented (like symlinks I'd guess, or const references). At the moment you can't even *rename* an object that is no-mod, not even if that no-mod is inherited from only a part of it. That is clearly a bug. If you delink the no-mod prim, then rename the 'root' and then relink, it DOES have a different name - so why is it not possible to rename directly? :/ So... what was I saying... Allow users to set flags (also on no-mod objects) and marking them as "do not suspend". Then only allow to rez non-suspend objects till the soft-limit. -- Carlo Wood <ca...@alinoe.com> _______________________________________________ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/SLDev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
