[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#4242) Clean up the goto route network protocol and route execution

["Raimar Falke" <rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 01:20:53PM -0700, Per I. Mathisen wrote:
> >  - a lot of the cruft of the old protocol was about handling
> >  unlimited routes by splitting these into chunks. I removed this and
> >  set a limit (MAX_LEN_ROUTE). MAX_LEN_ROUTE is 1200 steps. This is ~5
> >  times the number to go around the largest world (255x255).
> 
> This is far, probably too much. But nevertheless, don't assert this
> without capping it somewhere.
> 
> +  assert(src->length < MAX_LEN_ROUTE);

Silent capping is not what we want. We want something like:

  freelog(LOG_ERROR, "freeciv only support paths of %d length. The
  path you tried to use is %d. Please contact freeciv-dev@... to let
  this limit be increased.");

> +  pf_print_path(LOG_DEBUG, src);
> 
> I hope you remove this for the final version :-)

Is it really this much runtime overhead?

> +    for (i = 0; i < packet->length; i++) {
> +      dio_put_uint8(&dout, packet->path[i].x);
> +      dio_put_uint8(&dout, packet->path[i].y);
> +      dio_put_bool8(&dout, packet->path[i].wait);
>      }
> 
> Hmm. Instead of sending a hard 'wait', why not mark dangers and let the
> server sort out the waiting? This way we don't screw up if the server sits
> on some information we don't have. Probably harder to code, though.

Uhhh. You want that the client sends the server a goal and a set of
dangerous tiles and the server finds a path? Or do you want that the
client sends the server a path and a set of dangerous tiles and the
server figures out the waiting?

> As for savegames, I say just nuke the punit->pgr info from old savegames.
> It is not important information unless we want the savegame to debug. And
> then we want new savegames anyway.

Possible.

        Raimar

-- 
 email: rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 "On the eigth day, God started debugging"