Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: November 2001:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: curiosity

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: curiosity

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: Freeciv developers <freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: curiosity
From: Reinier Post <rp@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 21:58:32 +0100

On Fri, Nov 30, 2001 at 11:35:33AM -0500, Andrew Sutton wrote:
> in my opinion freeciv1.x has reached a point of maturity where the only thing 
> left seems to be features, bugfixes and some minor extensions.
> is there any interest in starting a 2.0 development branch?

As usual, I won't bring in much code, but I'll comment anyway ...
wouldn't it be better to switch to C++ or even Java for 2.0?

> i think there's alot to be learned from the successes and shortcomings of the 
> current implementation, that would do well to influence the development of a 
> new system - specifically, a much more flexible core. actually, i'd kind of 
> like to rebuild the server as a micorkernel, allowing the development of 
> modules to implement specific gaming elements. rulesets would choose gaming 
> elements to use and mix and match various properties, defining the tech tree, 
> unit capabilities, etc, and various algorithms to use.

This seems The True Way Forward, but I don't think the existing
codebase is a good basis; neither is a requirement for backward
compatibility.  So why not switch to a more suitable language.

> i'd also like to improve and generalize the network protocol to make it 
> something more like a traditional API instead of a series of sends and gets.

The asynchronous nature of the protocol is a design feature.
It really helps on poor connections.

> in short, there's alot that could be done with freeciv, but i think it's too 
> hard to re-integrate back into the original code thru a series of patches so 
> maybe its time to start over.
> any takers?
> andy
> p.s. i'd really like the blessing of the current maintainers because they 
> know the system considerably better than i do and have a pretty good idea how 
> the game is built and would most likely be invaluable in influencing the 
> direction of a second version (despite current disagreements :). i think this 
> could be done with a 2.0 development branch and about 10 core developers with 
> write access to the cvs repository.

Do we have open solicitations for maintainership in this branch?
Will there be a need to have this as a CVS branch, or will it use its
own CVS server?


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