On 2013 Mar 1, at 2:50 AM, Jacob Nevins wrote:
<snip>
> David Lowe writes:
>> That's an interesting idea, but i don't know who would have the time
>> and talent to submit such a patch. In order to be truly useful, it
>> would have to enable the given unit to do almost anything the player
>> could tell it to do - and prevent the script from having the unit do
>> things the player couldn't tell it to do. It seems like that would
>> require lots of hooks to accomplish all that.
>
> Permissions won't be a problem -- we already don't trust the client, so
> a client-side script won't be able to do anything the player can't.
>
> But, yes, there is a fair amount of work required to define the actions
> for client-side scripting to affect the game world. They can't all be
> straight copies of the server methods (e.g. 'edit' module), because the
> client doesn't get instant feedback; e.g. on the server,
> edit.unit_move() returns whether the unit died; on the client, it will
> merely trigger the dispatch of a network packet requesting that the unit
> move, and in the natural implementation, when that returns to the script
> we won't know if the move was even allowed; if the script wants to know
> what happened to the unit it will have to watch for a signal triggered
> by news of the unit's fate from the server (and in any case can't know
> for sure that e.g. the unit's death was triggered by the script's
> action). So client-side scripts are going to have to be written in a
> much more open-loop style.
I'm not sure if permissions is the word i would have used, but a rogue
script could conceivably issue an order that couldn't even be given through the
GUI. We may want to review our sanity-checking as part of this effort.
sent from Lion
Jayne: "Ten percent of nothin' is ... let me do the math here ... nothin' into
nothin' ... carry the nothin' ... "
_______________________________________________
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
