Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: April 2003:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: client/server authentication (PR#1767)
Home

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: client/server authentication (PR#1767)

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: client/server authentication (PR#1767)
From: "Mike Kaufman" <kaufman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 08:52:39 -0800
Reply-to: rt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Thu, Apr 03, 2003 at 08:01:49AM -0800, Per I. Mathisen wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Mike Kaufman wrote:
> > the only new command implemented thus far is the /take command. others will
> 
> Can you please explain the conceptual difference between /take and /attach
> and why you need both?

well, depending on how you define /take, you may not need both. the
situation is: a user [kauf] connects, and then decides he doesn't want to 
play, so he unattaches himself from the anonymous player he has. Later he 
decides he wants to play again (this is still in pregame). You can do a 
couple of things:

/take

or 

/create noname
/take noname

or 

/attach kauf

we can overload /take if that's what you want to do, or we can use 
/create as such, or we can create a new command /attach. I created a little
logic table, and /attach wasn't in it. I could do either, but the second is
probably the best.

We will need a second command to unattach a connection from a player (I've
tentatively called it /untake for symmetry). We could use "/remove username"
but I think this is too confusing.

On another note, we need some way to prevent people from taking over
players when not wanted. So we'll need to either have a command to elevate
cmdlevel for other commands (so that we can move /take from info to ctrl)
or a boolean game.allow_take whose meaning is obvious. The former would be
pretty cool, but a lot of work. The latter would be fairly simple.

-mike



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