Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: May 2003:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#4242) Clean up the goto route network protocol and

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

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#4242) Clean up the goto route network protocol and route execution
From: "Gregory Berkolaiko" <Gregory.Berkolaiko@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 17 May 2003 09:22:14 -0700
Reply-to: rt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Fri, 16 May 2003, Raimar Falke wrote:

> On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 10:23:37AM -0700, Gregory Berkolaiko wrote:
> > I have a complaint on the "wait" bit too, though.  Why are you reinventing
> > the wheel?  Path Finding implements the waiting by reinserting the
> > position into the path.  We should keep it throughout the code, instead of
> > converting from one format to another.  Just make goto_route_execute
> > recognize this convention, instead of doing it in compact_path.
> I think the wait bit has the clearer semantics. So I'm for changing
> the path-finding to also return the information in this form. Since we
> do only have a few users it is painless to change now.
> Can both forms express the same? There may be differences which I
> overlook.

They do the same, but "wait" is an extra byte per position in the packet.

Also, I think that the path printout is more readable the present way.
But if you really want you can change it.

On the other hand, the patch to support double-positions at the server is 
absolutel minimal.


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