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

[Reinier Post <rp@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 11:49:46AM +0100, Raimar Falke wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 10:41:32AM +0100, Reinier Post wrote:
> > > What do people think of making the server non-interactive anyway? A bad
> > > thing in principle, or ok if done properly?
> > 
> > It would be good to still have the cmdline interface in the server binary,
> > otherwise you need to start up two programs just to run a server.
> 
> IMHO a cmdline interface controller program is needed. I have no
> problem with a seperate controller program if it starts the server
> transparently in the background. Since it is a client (a special one)
> it can also act in other ways: for example as an observer.

I see the possibility, I don't see the technical reason for this.
Of course it is important to allow the client to start a server.
 
> Another idea: suppose you have a meta-server2 (the name meta-server is
> currently used and I don't know how much intersection is there between
> meta-server and meta-server2). This meta-server2 is a non-interactive
> demon. Its purpose is to start things. So this mentioned controller
> can tell the meta-server2 to start a new server.

The usual name for meta-server2 is inetd :-)

This would implement the 'pipe' solution and it wouldn't be hard to
implement.  Trouble is that many Freeciv players cannot control inetd
so we'd have to supply a custom mini-inetd.

> The client for
> example can also (after gathering the necessary data from the user)
> send a request to the meta-server2 to start a new server. And the
> server can (if we have some day the aibots) tell the meta-server2 to
> start a new aibot if a human player disconnects. Nice idea but
> probably overkill.

With a separate server starting problem it would be better to separate
the pregame and running phases of civserver.  But this would be a big change.

>       Raimar

-- 
Reinier