Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv: March 2002:
[Freeciv] Re: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: game.timeout
Home

[Freeciv] Re: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: game.timeout

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: <freeciv@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Freeciv] Re: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: game.timeout
From: "Per I. Mathisen" <Per.Inge.Mathisen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 08:46:16 +0100 (MET)

On Tue, 12 Mar 2002, Jason Short wrote:
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the +trade_size capability added
> last week effectively break compatibility with anything from before
> trade_size was applied?

A mandatory capability does that, yes.

> Given that, making an official break doesn't seem like such a big step.

Once you have added a mandatory capability to cvs, adding more isn't going
to be a big deal.

> Speaking of capabilities, I have a question about them.  When I
> implemented general-topologies, I changed the network protocol and added
> capabilities.  Ross has presumably done the same thing, although I
> haven't looked at that part of the corecleanups.  The problem is that
> the capability can't just be checked when map data is sent, although
> this is as far as I've gotten.  For instance, if we're playing on an
> iso-rectangular map and an old client connects, it's not sufficient just
> to send the map data in the old form.  In actuality, there's no way for
> the old client to join the game.
>
> However, capabilities could probably still be used, though it would be
> rather tricky.

Just use a mandatory capability.

Speaking of which, how are the general-topologies patches going? Are you
working on them? Is Ross working on his? Any chance of getting this in
before next release?

Yours,
Per

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch."
 -- Jack Nicholson



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