Maybe some sort of flood prevention should be added to SAX:
I didn't because it's never been a problem before. Looks like I need to rethink that. :/
Is that a bot or something?
Please don't add too strict filters or anything like that... Having something like the shoutbox for MyBB would suck.
5 messages in a row tops perhaps?
5 messages within 10 seconds earns you a 1 minute mute?
Why would you have something to say every 2 seconds? It should all be strung together.
haveacalc wrote:
Goodbye, fast WPM...
Heaven forbid you just have one long message rather than 30 individual sentences, with each having its own 'post' 
.
By the way, remember to account for a large conversation on IRC. It may read IRC as a user and treat it with 'flood control' causing some issues.
For minimal lag, I'll implement it within the javascript on these pages. Technically someone could get around it with some coding of their own, but I'm not going to worry about that, since it's only meant to prevent people from spamming the box at left.
14:23:47 haveacalc: Is
14:23:47 haveacalc: it
14:23:49 haveacalc: even
14:23:50 haveacalc: a
14:23:51 haveacalc: problem?
14:23:51 haveacalc: It
14:23:54 haveacalc: looks
14:23:54 haveacalc: like
14:23:54 haveacalc: that
14:23:56 haveacalc: only
14:23:57 haveacalc: happened
14:23:58 haveacalc: once.
Well, technically, I did it some minutes ago. But no one was on, and thus no one cared.
Sweet! I'm an advanced newbie. lol.
</offtopic>
I think it's imperative that you have restrictions on the SAX Chat. Perhaps if it's possible, you can have a more strict filter for non-posting members and, as you post more, you can type more than once within a few seconds in SAX if its totally necessary.
Remember that we want to keep our saxjax nice and speedy.
would many filters slow it down?
Think of how many times it's looping per second. It probably wouldn't make a huge difference, but it already lags some. Try typing something in: There's already a very significant delay.
ok, i see what you mean. Well, i guess my idea is way out of the question then. tee hee.
haveacalc wrote:
Think of how many times it's looping per second. It probably wouldn't make a huge difference, but it already lags some. Try typing something in: There's already a very significant delay.
No, thats because there is a low refresh rate to keep bandwidth down. Kerm's got plenty of CPU cycles with which to play with, and adding filters wouldn't cause a noticeable delay. And haveacalc, it is not looping at all. If it looped, it would never return any data 
(remember, PHP is only executed upon a client request, it is not running continuously).
