Not, apparently, content with the Display Names update converting existing user account names to their 1982 ungrammatical Neanderthal RFC821 equivalents, there’s apparently another surprise in store under the hood.
Apparently chat logs are getting written as LLSD files now.
{‘from’:'Second Life’,'from_id’:u00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000,’message’:'Teleport completed from secondlife://Aditi/secondlife/Mesh Sandbox 14/21/123/56′,’source_type’:i0,’time’:’2010/08/31 20:44′}
Yes, there’s an option to toggle them to plain-text – if you remember to set it – but it isn’t the default.
So, the default is slower, harder and no fun at all. What’s up with that?
Tags: Aditi, chat logs, Display Names feature, Fast Easy Fun, Opinion, RFC 821, Second Life beta grid, Second Life viewers, Virtual Environments and Virtual Worlds
This entry was posted
on Friday, 15th October, 2010.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Possibly related posts
Second Life 3.0.0 now available in beta, Goodbye translation HUDs and built-in Second Life chat translation? Google translate API to close, The seven day beta, Second Life basic mode goes beta, Second Life viewer 2.2 beta now available
Commenters are to be civil, courteous and respectful to others, insofar as it is possible to do so. Beyond that, you're not required to agree with the opinions expressed by me or by others.
Think for yourselves! First time commenters will wind-up in the moderation queue and your comment won't appear right away. Ditto for anything that gets flagged by the anti-spam rules.
If an option already exists, it doesn’t seem to be a big issue from the tech point of view. From the logic/UI point of view, I assume this is an overlook and the default setting will be reversed before this goes into production.
Why and how much is this slower than the old way?
It’s certainly very hard to read if you’re trying to follow a logged conversation.
I can actually see this (well, not in the final release). If a chat log is going to be useful either for abuse reports or as a record over time, then it needs to unambiguously identify the _account_, not just the avatar name in current use. I hope they’ll replace the UUID with a combination of current name and account name before the final release, but as they experiment, I can totally see some coder saying “strip it back to the UUID, we’ll do the conversion to the new format when that’s all worked out.”
I don’t believe that the account name is available to the chat logging system at the time that the records are being written. So it has to be the display name or the UUID or a communications protocol change.
I hate how the plaintext chat setting resets to the default when I clear my cache, which I do almost every time I log out, which means every time I log in with 2.0 I have to set plain text again.
LL needs to abandon 2.0. I know they said they will not abandon 2.0 (Oz said at SLCC that he won’t even consider the suggestion), but 2.0 still drives me insane, so I’m going to keep saying it as long as it doesn’t improve, even if I’m screaming into the void. I won’t be using mesh if I have to use 2.0 to do it.
I first encountered the LLSD logs (where have I seen the letters LSD before?) when I ran the Display Names project viewer. I thought that might be a “new-improved” chatlog format made necessary by the userID ambiguity of Display Names. Later found out it could be toggled on and off. Whew. I’m sad to hear what @bubblesort is reporting: that clearing the cache resets chat logs to LLSD format.
And by “sad,” I mean:
{‘from’:’Whatcha Eaton’,’from_id’:u00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000069,’message’:’I am really sad about this′,’source_type’:i0,’time’:’2010/10/15 08:20′}
If you’re going to put a timestamp on it, at least have the courtesy to go down to the millisecond. Then I can write a script that will import LLSD and put it in a database or something, and then find out what anyone said, in chronological order.
Is the long string of characters without space messing up the blog’s layout for anyone else?
Looks okay to me in firefox 4 and Google Chrome.