> > I am not entirely sure why you would even want a password, > especially > > of such small size, if your goal is just to entirely block > > connections? It may as well be a boolean flag in the host > that, when > > set, drops all connect packets there. > > Well, I am not looking for strong security here, just some > kind of basic filtering.
Neither methods seem to deal with 'security', imho. Too basic. ... > Session blocking, however, has utility in released > products. I just don't want to 'waste' a separate boolean on > this when a special filter can to the trick. A boolean can be just 1 bit in a 32-bits flags field. Not sure if the 'host' struct already has such a field. Also, you don't want to waste a boolean but then want to add: enet_uint32 sessionPassword; to the host struct. How's that any less wasteful? I agree with Lee; your original problem states you want to 'ignore incoming connection requests'. A boolean that would be called 'ignoreIncomingConnectionRequests' seems to be logical. A 'sessionLocked' seems a more abstract term than that. And simple things... But perhaps I'm missing the point where a 'sessionLocked' would still be useful in a release scenario... Ruud _______________________________________________ ENet-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cubik.org/mailman/listinfo/enet-discuss
