Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: January 2002:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: server console cleanup patch v2
Home

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: server console cleanup patch v2

[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: server console cleanup patch v2
From: "Per I. Mathisen" <Per.Inge.Mathisen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 00:05:17 +0100 (MET)

On Sun, 6 Jan 2002, Reinier Post wrote:
> >  - this ruleset is transmitted to clients like the others
>
> The problem with these packets is again that they transmit fixed structs,
> so they have to be changed (and all the code to deal with them) whenever
> an addition to the tuleset is made.

No. The registry dialog on the client end should be generic and display
any registry info sent to it. I imagine it could be like Windows'
"regedit" or MacOSX's NetInfo config tool. It might be a pain to code, but
once that is done, making changes will be so much easier.

> >  - a gui dialog which is a registry options browser and editor needs to be
> > written (somewhat like the windows registry editor) in the client
> >  - helptext is put in <command>_helptext, should be one for each option
> >  - min and max values is shown in helptext. the server refuses to set
> > values outside valid range
>
> As Raimar said, it's better, but not essential, to check at the
> client end.  That way the GUI can prevent the entry of incorrect values.

Yes, you are right, when I think about it. Also because it would be much
better if min/max info is read from the ruleset, instead of hard-coded in
the server. But I cannot think of an elegant way of doing it... best I can
think of is looking for a *_valmin and *_valmax option for each option not
in the set {*_valmin, *_valmax, *_helptext}, but like *_helptext, it is
more like an ugly hack... I don't really like it.

> Not fully upward compatible: in order to allow the client to 'see'
> new server options you have to upgrade it.  (Well there is always
> the /set + /show interface of course.)

See above. I still maintain it is both upward compatible and makes /set +
/show entirely redundant.

What do people think of making the server non-interactive anyway? A bad
thing in principle, or ok if done properly?

Yours,
Per

"Oil industry spokesmen dismissed as "absurd" and "nonsense" allegations
by aid experts, veteran East Africa analysts and several prominent Somalis
that President Bush, a former Texas oilman, was moved to act in Somalia,
at least in part, by the U.S. corporate oil stake." -- L.A. Times



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