On 12/1/05, Bruce Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 30 Nov 2005, Norman Rasmussen wrote: > > > You might also try presence elements instead of message elements - > > depending on what you mean by the game event. > > > > Typically I would map game movement to presence elements, and game > > actions via messages - thoughts? > > As long as its always directed presence elements (ie, with a 'to') that is > being sent out. I have vague worries of such a game engine being used > with a user's regular jabber credentials and annoying everyone on their > roster with floods of spurious update information.
Hrmm, good point. I half have a collaborative editor idea in the pipe-line, and I'm thinking of using one muc per file (much like lluna uses one muc per web-page). The directed presence is very important, because I was planning on sending current cursor location as part of the presence information. (file changes would be transmitted as messages) > Quite apart from that, its a good idea. It means that regular jabber > servers can be used on the servers, and the normal availability mechanism > will nicely kick when a game connection disconnects. true, you get all the backend functionally with very little effort :-) -- - Norman Rasmussen - Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Home page: http://norman.rasmussen.co.za/
