Note to self: don't ask questions that can be researched. Turns out
that structs cannot be iterated over, let alone determining the type
of a field at such an index. Will take a little more effort to
serialize structs, but I still think it's the preferred method.
Quoting "M. Rijks" <[email protected]>:
Isn't it better to serialize the struct somehow? There are a few
reasons I'd do this:
1. Structs can't contain strings (or other data types) that have
arbitrary length, and maxing them out towards some convenient maximum
is expensive in terms of message size.
2. You can remain forward/backward compatibility of structs between
versions of your games, by ignoring missing or unknown data.
3. You do not have to send all struct data if you don't need to.
A practical example is a session information message - I'd like it to
contain - or not - a session ID, sesion name, session owner name,
maximum amount of players, current amount of players, map data, session
settings, et cetera. But not necessarily all.
I'm not at home in C++ far enough to know if struct fields can be
accessed by index somehow, but it would be easy to decompose a message
- one byte to identify the struct, followed by a stream of fields each
started with the index of the field in the struct (assuming 255 members
max) by which you can look up its size in the struct, and then know how
many bytes this field should take from the message.
Would really make it easy to serialize just about any struct. Speaking
of which, when receiving any kind of struct (serialized or not) it does
seem to make sense to check the incoming struct size and see if it
matches your own, or you may crash your server. I'm thinking about
malevolent players intercepting packages, changing the size and then
reapplying the CRC to pass it under ENet's radar.
Quoting Jay Sprenkle <[email protected]>:
A great way to do this. There are plenty of other ways. Just identify the
data in any way you like so you can classify it on the receiver.
2010/1/17 Thorbjørn Lindeijer <[email protected]>
On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 19:50, Alex Milstead <[email protected]>
wrote:
Also, Jay you mentioned earlier that it was easy to do simple data-type
checking on the receiving end. I'm a bit of a fledgling network
programmer
-- I'm still definitely becoming more acquainted the vast amount of
unfamiliar programming techniques in this particular arena. The only
surefire type-checking system I know about in programming is in java
(=/),
with it's "instanceof" operator. As far as I know this type of mechanism,
or
anything similar, doesn't really exist in C/C++. So my next question is,
if
we're sending binary data along and receiving it as binary data, what's
the
most efficient way of type-checking the probable struct being piped
through?
You give it a number which designates its type. You'd usually prepend
such a number to each of your messages, so that you know how to
interpret them on the other end.
Cause united breaks guitars
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YGc4zOqozo
_______________________________________________
ENet-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cubik.org/mailman/listinfo/enet-discuss
_______________________________________________
ENet-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cubik.org/mailman/listinfo/enet-discuss
