[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#7246) Send origin of chat messages

["Raimar Falke" <i-freeciv-lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

<URL: http://rt.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=7246 >

On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 10:55:23AM -0700, Jason Short wrote:
> 
> <URL: http://rt.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=7246 >
> 
> Raimar Falke wrote:
> 
> >>- Take a look at PR#6523.  This is a more generalized version of the 
> >>same concept, except that I use the player_no instead of the conn_id.
> > 
> > It _is_ the other solution which I didn't want because it changes _a
> > lot_ of code.
> 
> I'm not saying you should implement PR#6523.  But please keep it in mind 
> as a future extension of your work.

IMHO it is not an extension but a different implementation of the
server side part.

> >>Is there a reason the conn_id is superior?  (As an aside, I haven't
> >>given up on the PR#6523 idea.  But it will take some work to update
> >>it I imagine.)
> > 
> > conn_id has more information. While it is currently almost the same it
> > may change if multiple connections (user) control/observe a player.
> 
> How will this work with other events?

It should always send the conn_id of the connection of the player
which packet is currently processed by the server.

> If a player declares war on us the server sends the conn_id of the
> player's connection?

Yes.

> What if this value isn't unique?

conn-ids are unique. Some way city-ids are unique.

> IMO it is easier to stick to the player_no.  But it probably doesn't
> matter all that much, since in most cases they are synonymous and in
> other cases you probably don't care which you have.

Yes.

        Raimar

-- 
 email: rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 "Of course, someone who knows more about this will correct me if I'm
  wrong, and someone who knows less will correct me if I'm right."
    -- David Palmer (palmer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)