Hello.
Reminder, the page http://wiki.metalforge.net/doku.php/dev%3Aserver_design and
specifically the 'player-wise' section is waiting for you and your ideas! :)
Nicolas
--
http://nicolas.weeger.org [Petit site d'images, de textes, de code, bref de
l'aléatoire !]
signature.asc
Hello.
I've put a first basic draft at
http://wiki.metalforge.net/doku.php/dev%3Aserver_design
The first step, though, would be to define the exact kind of game we want,
obviously :)
Feel free to tweak the page and add stuff you think is missing!
(note: the dates are informative, can be
Hello.
Ok, from what I gather, people aren't against massive changes on the server.
Reminder, though: content goes first, always :)
So feel free to ignore all the technical aspects if you only want to make
content :D
So here is what we'll do:
- put on a wiki page what kind of game we want
Le mardi 25 novembre 2008, Lalo Martins a écrit :
quoth Lauwenmark Akkendrittae as of Mon, 24 Nov 2008 20:02:49 +0100:
Le lundi 24 novembre 2008, Lalo Martins a écrit :
I see two good reasons for Nicolas favouring Qt over Boost:
- He's more familiar with Qt, and having to learn another
quoth Lauwenmark Akkendrittae as of Wed, 26 Nov 2008 17:18:45 +0100:
Also, here's something I forgot before: would use Qt imply using
Trolltech's bastard C++ dialect, and MOC?
There we hit your real issue, don't we? Short answer: yes, you have to
use MOC, and yes, it implies using its
Alex Schultz wrote:
On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 22:06:40 -0800
Mark Wedel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Shared strings: While perhaps no reason to get rid of them, I also
wonder how necessary they are now days. They do simplify
comparisons. And with C++ and proper class descriptions, they can be
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 00:20:38 -0800
Mark Wedel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also, I think re-joining existing servers may be more difficult.
If I'm in scorn and go off into a new building, and that building is
not currently active, it goes and forks off a new process and the
existing file
quoth Lauwenmark Akkendrittae as of Mon, 24 Nov 2008 20:02:49 +0100:
Le lundi 24 novembre 2008, Lalo Martins a écrit :
I see two good reasons for Nicolas favouring Qt over Boost:
- He's more familiar with Qt, and having to learn another toolkit,
especially something as complex as Boost,
I have seen C++ messes that I would hate to see in CF, but then it is well
known that you see current CF code as a mess in itself, so perhaps it has
potential for cleaning up the code...
Well, that is one of the points of the rewrite I'm proposing, indeed...
I depend on trunk not being
Seems like a sort of odd decision since most recent conversations have
seemed to have decided that more content and less code work is what is
really needed to be done, but this seems to be a big code project...
Yes, it has the potential to be ambitious.
And just given the size and
Well, one thought, is there any reason Qt-core as opposed Boost C++
perhaps? If I understand correctly, they provide similar faculties but
Boost C++ also provides some rather nice looking python bindings that
may make it far easier to move cfpython to a C++ code style.
I'm not saying
quoth Nicolas Weeger as of Mon, 24 Nov 2008 16:50:17 +0100:
So why Qt:
- cross-platform
- well tested through KDE and many applications - has all the basics we
need: strings (including shared strings for memory reduction unless I'm
mistaking), sockets, file / directory, threads and locks,
Le lundi 24 novembre 2008, Alex Schultz a écrit :
That said, a little searching shows that if we want similar automagical
wrapping and go with Qt-core, apparently QtScript (an ECMAScript based
scripting language which has been included in the Qt toolkit since
4.3.0), appears to be able to
Le lundi 24 novembre 2008, Lalo Martins a écrit :
Before anyone gets the impression I'm turning this into a Boost holy
war... let me reiterate I don't feel that strongly about it, just
answering Nicolas' questions here.
snip
I see two good reasons for Nicolas favouring Qt over Boost:
- He's
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 20:07:37 +0100
Nicolas Weeger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello.
I do plan to have a C++/Qt (core only, no X dependency) version of
the server, with advanced stuff (dynamic archetype loading, ...).
Well, one thought, is there any reason Qt-core as opposed Boost C++
perhaps?
Nicolas Weeger wrote:
Hello.
I do plan to have a C++/Qt (core only, no X dependency) version of the
server,
with advanced stuff (dynamic archetype loading, ...).
I do expect / want this version to become the official server (winning on
features, hopefully :)).
But I definitely
Le lundi 17 novembre 2008, Nicolas Weeger a écrit :
Hello.
I do plan to have a C++/Qt (core only, no X dependency) version of the
server, with advanced stuff (dynamic archetype loading, ...).
I do expect / want this version to become the official server (winning on
features, hopefully :)).
quoth Nicolas Weeger (Mon, 17 Nov 2008 20:07:37 +0100):
So two options:
- I work directly on trunk - my preferred option, considering it's
unstable since some years, and doesn't seem to be soon stable, not
much work going on it
- I make a branch and work there - and if needed / when we want
18 matches
Mail list logo
