// comments - Printable Version
-Shoutbox (https://shoutbox.menthix.net)
+-- Forum: MsgHelp Archive (/forumdisplay.php?fid=58)
+--- Forum: Messenger Plus! for Live Messenger (/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+---- Forum: WLM Plus! General (/forumdisplay.php?fid=23)
+----- Thread: // comments (/showthread.php?tid=56523)
// comments by chrisbloe on 03-06-2006 at 02:48 PM
I'm sure most people would find this completely unnecessary, but I'd like to have a command so that certain things in a message can only be read by myself.
For example:
Hello //<Unread message/personal note>
The point of this is for the XHTML saved messages, so that it's easier to see the context of certain things said.
What do people think?
RE: // comments by John Anderton on 03-06-2006 at 02:57 PM
You mean it should be only shown in the xhtml logs ?? Also do you want it to show wether you read the message or not (that could be dodgy) or just any message that you want ??
I could use it i guess but since i change my status as per the need, the xhtml tags just need to show my status to put it in context 
I said the read message could be dodgy cause you could have browsed past it without reading it, how is plus supposed to know wether you read it ? You cant be expected to tick every message you have read 
Its not worth the trouble for me atleast.
I hope i didnt misunderstand anything you said .... this is how i interpretted it If i have please correct me chrisbloe 
RE: // comments by chrisbloe on 03-08-2006 at 01:58 AM
I mean it should be used in the same way it is in programming, the XHTML histories see the entire 'source code', including he comments I've made, whilst the person I'm writing the message to has the comments filtered out so they can't see them. I, however, should be able to see the comments in the conversation window...
Hope that's more understandable
Kris
RE: // comments by RaceProUK on 03-08-2006 at 03:38 PM
The analogy with program comments is a good explanation. For example, a compiler sees 'int x = 3*y; // init x' as 'int x = 3*y;'. So what's wanted is for the chat log to show 'rofl // just humouring', but the contact to see 'rofl'.
I'm not too sure about the demand for such a feature, plus it'll need to access the protocol directly to be implemented properly. So it'll need to be a plugin.
RE: // comments by Eljay on 03-08-2006 at 03:40 PM
would still show up to contacts without plus though...
RE: // comments by RaceProUK on 03-08-2006 at 03:43 PM
No it wouldn't: if it alters the MSG packets directly, it'll be entirely one-sided. Contacts without Plus! don't see what isn't sent, after all
Basically:
Message -> Plus! commands -> Packet sniffer -> Server -> Contact.
The packet sniffer will remove the comment before forwarding the MSG packet (suitably altered) to the server.
RE: // comments by Eljay on 03-08-2006 at 03:45 PM
quote:
Originally posted by raceprouk
No it wouldn't: if it alters the MSG packets directly, it'll be entirely one-sided. Contacts without Plus! don't see what isn't sent, after all
Basically:
Message -> Plus! commands -> Packet sniffer -> Server -> Contact.
The packet sniffer will remove the comment before forwarding the MSG packet (suitably altered) to the server.
oh right i thought you meant filtering out after they were sent, i get it now, yeh its not a bad idea
RE: RE: // comments by CookieRevised on 03-09-2006 at 01:28 AM
I think (calculated guess) that you all misunderstood chrisbloe
quote:correct
Originally posted by raceprouk
The analogy with program comments is a good explanation. For example, a compiler sees 'int x = 3*y; // init x' as 'int x = 3*y;'. So what's wanted is for the chat log to show 'rofl // just humouring', but the contact to see 'rofl'.
quote:I would certainly use it
Originally posted by raceprouk
I'm not too sure about the demand for such a feature
quote:I don't see what the protocol, packets sending, sniffing or anything like that has to do with it though...
Originally posted by raceprouk
plus it'll need to access the protocol directly to be implemented properly. So it'll need to be a plugin.
(...)
.... if it alters the MSG packets directly, it'll be entirely one-sided. Contacts without Plus! don't see what isn't sent, after all
Basically:
Message -> Plus! commands -> Packet sniffer -> Server -> Contact.
The packet sniffer will remove the comment before forwarding the MSG packet (suitably altered) to the server.
Nothing is seen by your contacts, and the feature doesn't depend on what your contact has or hasn't (Plus! for example); it is totally locally.
chrisbloe basicly asked for a so called "echo" command. Echoing is outputting text without sending it thru the normal means of output (if that makes any sense
). Aka: a "set this text as some log comment" command.eg: mIRC has this command too: "/echo". You can use that to add comments (or whatever you want) to the log file, for a quick search/lookup later. Nothing is send to the contact, the only thing that is done is writing a line to the log file.
I would find such a command very usefull indeed!
in fact, this was one of the first things I programmed in mIRC so I could quickly add some comments to the logs after something has been said. Extremely usefull to look things up and to use as reference pionts in big otherwise chaotic logs
And I hope something like this is added to the new version of Plus! (or a way in the new Plugin API to tell Plus! to save its current cached chat log lines to the log file so you can append a line yourself in the correct positions... see PS below)
PS: this can't be done/programmed as of now in a plugin or whatever because Plus! doesn't save log files each time you type something. Chat lines in log files (in Plus! at least) are only written after certain time intervals (and when you close the convo of course), not after each line of text you send to your contact.
RE: // comments by RaceProUK on 03-09-2006 at 02:03 PM
I mentioned the protocol, as currently the way chrisbloe described it would mean that a plugin is necessary, and packet sniffing would be a suitable method. However, if the command can be incorporated directly into Plus!, then obviously it'll have the advantage of not needing to deal with the protocol at all.
RE: // comments by CookieRevised on 03-09-2006 at 05:34 PM
quote:not true though...
Originally posted by raceprouk
I mentioned the protocol, as currently the way chrisbloe described it would mean that a plugin is necessary, and packet sniffing would be a suitable method. However, if the command can be incorporated directly into Plus!, then obviously it'll have the advantage of not needing to deal with the protocol at all.
packet sniffing isn't needed at all. Neither with a plugin as plugins can have there own command... eg: /xecho
The only thing needed and thus the only "problem" to be solved, in whatever way you do it (plugin, internally in Plus!, addon, whatever), is a way to let Plus! purges all his cache to the log file, nothing else is needed, no packet sniffing or protocol or anything.