Alex Schultz wrote:
For a while now I've been throwing the idea of separating the server's
object-type-specific code by object types. Currently things are rather
disorganized with code for how an object type works being spread all
around the code. I plan to begin to implement the plan on the
Just a thought, I'm thinking that perhaps the LUA patch should be put in
trunk for 2.x but not in 1.x. Also, to me it would make a bit of sense
to also remove the current scripting system in 2.x in favor of that
provided that the LUA engine can be supported on all platforms and is
built-in.
On 10/29/06, Nicolas Weeger (Laposte) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
Removing existing scripting, well, I'm not too eager, I think people are used
to it...
I have a strange feeling that this might evolve into a plugin system. :-/
--
Andrew Fuchs
___
Few questions:
Use form of server/types/foo.c or server/types/foo/bar.c depending on if the
object type requires multiple C files to be clean.
With the fact that the SVN repository is called server, it is unclear exactly
what server refers to.
If we include the repository name, is it:
Mark Wedel wrote:
snip
IMO, I'd prefer the second form - put the types directory at the top level,
relative to the server directory. This is how the socket code is, doesn't
have
any real disadvantage, but could have some advantages (better for unit tests?
Better for stand alone
5 matches
Mail list logo
