Pete Morgan wrote: > Tom P wrote: >> Hi Torsten >> >> That's an interesting concept, I was thinking about groups as well. >> >> But instead of writing extra code on top of the current client and server, >> could we use different ports on the server? >> >> Let me explain: if I understand correctly, the server already allows >> connection to port 5002 for testing., >> What if we extend the concept to multiple ports and maybe assign a >> name to the port to make things clear. >> >> As you said, some of the predefined groups could be: >> - Beginner => port 5000 >> - Adheres to/provides ATC => port 5001 >> - Combat/Fighter on a mission => port 5002 >> - Airliner => port 5003 >> >> (I'd group "Adheres to/provides ATC" and "Airliner" together for now). >> >> Obviously the server will need to do a bit more work, but at least the >> demultiplexing between groups is done by the TCP/IP stack, which is >> quite optimal. >> >> The only drawback is that groups are *really* separate, it would not >> be easy to see traffic from other groups. >> >> Just an idea, >> >> Tom > I like this idea a lot :-)
I would suggest that this is a bad idea - ever increasing port requirements are simply going to annoy the people running the servers. It's really not the right way to solve the problem. Jon ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
