Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: November 2001:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: commandline syntax and semantics (was: Server/ruleset

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: commandline syntax and semantics (was: Server/ruleset

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: Daniel Sjölie <deepone@xxxxxxxxxx>, Freeciv developers <freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: commandline syntax and semantics (was: Server/ruleset unification)
From: Reinier Post <rp@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2001 09:41:45 +0100

On Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 01:44:56AM +0100, Daniel Sjölie wrote:

> Actually, now that I think about it... How hard would it be to actually
> use a subset of (or very heavily inspired by) sql syntax? That would solve
> our problems nicely I think... I've kind of written that of earlier because
> it might be overly complex but maybe it really wouldn't be that hard...
> It certainly would have a lot of advantages, right?

The easiest way to support that is to make civserver use a database.

It's nice to have generic selections, but I would only use SQL syntax if
there is actually a relational database underneath, which has advantages
in itself.

> The convenient syntax above should be specific for the command line
> server (no need for this in a gui-server) and _implemented_ _using_ the
> "ruleset-language"... So that /ai Napoleon could become:
> update players set ai=not ai where name="Napoleon"
> Server commands should not be part of the language but there should be a
> server command that would take a "ruleset-language" statement as
> argument and execute it...
> This would give the best of all worlds, wouldn't it?
> Do you think it's too much?

I prefer to have as few languages as possible.  Your HSQL (Homegrown SQL)
won't be SQL so it's best not to make it seem like SQL.


[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]