[Freeciv-Dev] Re: C vs C++ vs Java

[Andrew Sutton <ansutton@xxxxxxx>]

On Monday 03 December 2001 12:25 pm, Raimar Falke wrote:
> IMHO you haven't. Please state exactly what you want to change.

i meant broad requirements for the system as a whole...

> Consider for example these questions for the network protocol part:
>
>  - do you want to change the network protocol?
>  - if yes: why?
>  - will the new protocol still be asynchronous
>  - do you plan something like capabilities? Why, how?
>  - how do you handle security? (e.g. authentication)
>  - will the protocal be a general one (CORBA or RMI) or a handmade
>  like the current one? Why?
>  - what languages will be able to understand the protocol easily?
>  - do you plan to reduce the bandwidth used? for example by only
>  sending parts of the packets which have changed?
>  - should there channels allowed which connect two clients directly?
>  For example to allow civbots to work together? What protocol is used
>  for this?
>  - will the protocol use compression? Have the benefits been tested?
>  - will tcp or udp be used? why?

remember, this isn't a modification its a rewrite. some of those are 
appropriate to answer others aren't. it's called requirement gathering, and 
if we're going to be doing it, then we're going to do it right. and that 
means that EVERY aspect of the game will be captured in something written 
down. unfortunately, this is going to be an absolutely enormous document. 
huge! probably a hundred pages or so. and it's not going to be very 
interesting.

if the current implementation of the network protocol matches the existing 
one, then there won't be a need to change it.

> If you answer all these questions and other bunches of such questions
> about other parts of the system (AI, server, multiplayer, sharing of
> code between server and client, rulesets, modpacks, sound, what
> language, what tools, ..., ...) _than_ you can call this a design. You
> are very fixed about ruleset flexibility and OO but a redesign
> (freeciv version 2 should be one) needs much more.

yup. this is where i'm going with it :) i'd like to have all subsystems fully 
documented, including rationalization of requirements, design and 
implementation. that way, when we find something we've done wrong, we won't 
have to go digging thru the list archives to find it.

> Please take some time alone and think about what problems the current
> system has and about solution you suggest/prefer. Post the
> results. This will be your standpoint and can be discussed. If you
> start the discussion now you will never think about the whole system
> (as the discussion shows).

oh... i am ;) it's just taking a while because there's alot to consider. i'm 
trying to persuade people into listing general requirements and features that 
we'd like for extensibility, but so far it's boiled down into alot of debate 
without clearcut answers.

i guess it's going to be up to me to formalize everything. bah. hopefully, in 
a couple weeks, i'll have a document that talks about everything...

andy