[Opensim-users] Script Engine Messages

[Justin Clark-Casey]

I have made a refinement in commit 972b0b5 to still warn if no explicit language was set.  I believe the false positives 
will be lower here, since lines are less likely to end with colons for completely separate reasons.

This is about balancing the known false positives against any use of this alternative engine specification facility. 
This problem (false positives because of : in the first line) has come up a lot in the past as well as now.  On the 
other hand. are you (or anybody else on this list) aware of any current cases of people using this ability to specify a 
different script engine?  I'm not currently aware of any.

The only other current script engine implementations I'm aware of are apart from XEngine are DNE (long discarded from 
core), ForthMinus (abandoned by Alondira over 4 years ago), some other DNE derived engine that was long abandoned and 
your own proprietary engine.  I don't count engines running on forked codebases since they have moved away from 
OpenSimulator compatibility.

To be honest, I think this is an over-specified feature that was only brought in originally to avoid making a decision 
about OpenSimulator's script engine.  I find it hard to believe that anyone would want to deal with the complexity of 
running some scripts in one engine and other scripts in another in the same simulator, just for some theoretical 
performance advantage.  I rather doubt you're running 2 engines for the same language since that would be a nightmare to 
explain to users (happy to be corrected on this point).

Really, I think we should adopt a better way of specifying the script language/engine than looking for a : than be stuck 
with this issue forever.

On 28/06/12 02:50, Melanie wrote:
> I'm afraid that can't be done this way. Selecting an engine without
> giving it an explicit language, e.g. // SCEngine: is legal.
> Therefore, with this patch, the defaulting to XEngine is no longer
> reported int these cases. Since the reporting was introduced to
> ensure that scripts are not run on engines with lesser
> functionality, the entire purpose of the message is completely
> defeated by this. With this patch, we might as well not notify users
> at all and just let them crash and burn.
>
> Melanie
>
> On 28/06/2012 02:49, Justin Clark-Casey wrote:
>> Okay Edmund, commit 25baa2d contains a change which should eliminate reporting of these false positives.  Please give it
>> a whirl.
>>
>> On 26/06/12 01:38, Edmund Edgar wrote:
>>> On 26 June 2012 08:58, Justin Clark-Casey <jjustincc at googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>> I don't like the way script language/desired engine detection was done - a
>>>> clash with existing scripts could have been avoided by requiring some
>>>> special preceeding chracters rather than simple c#, lsl:DotNetEngine, etc
>>>> (like #! in shell scripts, for instance).
>>>
>>> Agreed, but on the assumption that we're stuck with this convention
>>> now, would it be possible to tighten up the pattern matching a bit? It
>>> feels like the system should be able to tell the difference between
>>> //c#
>>> ...and
>>> // This is a comment consisting of multiple words. What it has to do
>>> with script engines: Nothing.
>>>
>>> Just checking for a colon seems a bit broad. One of the mind-numbing
>>> busywork tasks on my TODO list this morning is cleaning up some
>>> scripts somebody checked in since I last fixed our iar. Their editor -
>>> I think it's the Eclipse plugin - has helpfully added:
>>> // LSL script generated:
>>> furniture-1.0.object_definitions.presentation_seating.lslp Sat Nov 19
>>> 14:36:29 Tokyo Standard Time 2011
>>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Opensim-users mailing list
> Opensim-users at lists.berlios.de
> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-users
>


-- 
Justin Clark-Casey (justincc)
http://justincc.org/blog
http://twitter.com/justincc