<URL: http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=40592 >
> [sch...@debian.org - Wed Dec 10 22:50:45 2008]: > > On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 01:57:51AM -0800, Jason Dorje Short wrote: > > GGZ provides all the same features as auth with multiple backends > > support. I'd see improving the GGZ support as a better > > alternative than working on auth. > > Thanks, I'll abandon my effort on the auth front. I would rather that if you have the time and would not mind having your work possibly superseded at some unknown later time when ggz has matured, to submit your proposed auth improvements. With a clever design, there is also no reason why ggz cannot become just another "backend" for authenticating users (at least I assume the ggz api would permit that). Not that I do not agree with the premise of ggz, it is just that having multiple auth backends would help in the unification of the various freeciv "flavours". For example longturn freeciv uses a postgres library (pqxx of all things...) so that the server auth can be tied in with drupal modules used on the longturn.org site. Warclient freeciv implements a full extended glicko rating system, which is quite a bit more complex than the rating system provided by ggz given the complexity of game types possible in freeciv. I think server operators should have a choice in how they can authenticate users. Perhaps they just want fine grained control over which users are allowed to connect (e.g. banhammer), and the connection statistics. Or the ggz master servers are down that day. Anyway, my point is that assuming implementing multiple auth backends would not turn the auth code into a sprawling unmaintainable mess, since nobody is actively working on the freeciv-ggz integration at the moment I would that you make your contribution rather than not. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 皇帝陛下に忠誠をお誓いします！ _______________________________________________ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
