[Freeciv-Dev] Re: the things i dislike about freeciv

[Thue <thue@xxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 13 Oct 2000 17:14:18 Jeff Mallatt wrote:
> At 2000/10/13 11:06 , Thue wrote:
> >
> >> 1.f. goto should be pure client side.  again this is mostly a
philosophical
> >objection, since goto is very much a user-interface convenience.  i guess
> some
> >people would like way points and road-to commands.  they belong in the
client
> >too.
> >
> >I am almost finished with my patch to do this. Now if only I could find
> out why
> >the send buffer isn't flushed When doing the goto...
> >(http://hjem.get2net.dk/thue_janus_kristensen/client_goto.diff.gz).
> >But the goto in the server will stay, because the goto is not just a user
> >interface thing. It is used by the AI and various automated routines like
> >autosettlers (you could argue should be moved to the client too, but
> easier said than
> >done...)
> 
> What happens if the game stops, or the client disconnects?  What about save
> games?  I believe that goto, like worklists, needs to be server-side to
> handle these situations.
> 
> jjm

Im my patch the goto route is calculated in the client and then sent to the
server, so the server can (and do) save it. But having the calculation of the 
route
in the client makes it much cleaner, as you simple use what information is
available, and not have to go look in the client's private map, what is known 
to the
client, on the server. It is simply automatically bug free in the regard by
design, which is what I call good design :). Also, as you have seen, the goto 
line
can be shown while choosing the route. And waypoint can be easily introduced.
(and I already mentioned it can be used like the warmap in the client)

-Thue