s3vvy
|
  |
| Joined: 24 Feb 2011 |
| Total Posts: 983 |
|
|
| 01 Aug 2017 04:43 PM |
Okay? So what if you can access the service? You can't do anything with it.
That will just confuse the OP, and in this case, it doesn't matter.
You win, good job I bet your mom is proud.
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
|
| 01 Aug 2017 04:48 PM |
I find it necessary to make it clear that the service is replicated, but not the contents in order to prevent confusion. What if they find that they are able to access the service on the client, and it raises another question?
Word it how you will, but there's a difference. I admit that it's pedantic but it could prevent confusion.
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 01 Aug 2017 04:51 PM |
it causes more confusion than it prevents
at least, if you are going to reply to a thread saying that local scripts CAN access server storage, you need to make the distinction that local scripts CANNOT access the contents of server storage, because that's the only way that people are going to try to use it anyway
nobody who uses server storage needs to know that local scripts can access the service but not its contents
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 01 Aug 2017 05:03 PM |
"I find it necessary to make it clear that the service is replicated"
this is also not true a server storage service exists on the client but it is not replicated from the server |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 01 Aug 2017 09:36 PM |
I worded that incorrectly. I hope I still got my point across.
Anyway, you're right about saying that I should have mentioned more than what I originally replied with, but I still don't think that it's something that should be ignored. It wouldn't have caused any potential confusion if I explained more, but someone may become confused when they are able to access a service that someone tells them they aren't able to access at all.
That's why I interjected.
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|