Re: client/server (was Re: CF: Comments on documentation, 2 magic system)

["Mark Wedel" <mwedel@pyramid.com>]

On Jul 11,  9:50am, Raphael.Quinet@eed.ericsson.se wrote:
> Subject: client/server (was Re: CF: Comments on documentation, 2 magic sys
> On Wed, 10 Jul 1996, "Mark Wedel" <mwedel@pyramid.com> wrote:
> [...]
> >  Arguably, a cleaner way to do this until the clien/server comes along
would be
> > to integrates the client's scrollbar into the server code.  [...]
>
> I thought about this, but I didn't want to do that because it would
> make the old pseudo-client better and this would be remove one of the
> reasons to move to the real client/server code.  So I hope that nobody
> will write a patch to do that...

 That was also some of the reason I also didn't merge it in (along with the
time issues.)  It is also much easier to work on that stuff on the client -
server can keep on running, and only a quick recompile is needed of the client
is needed to see if it works..


> Well, I don't mind if only XPM is supported, because I don't use
> anything else...  :-)  But here is the problem:
>
> (much discussion about plans and client/server cut for brevity)

 I agree that the client and server should be separated.   but someone actually
needs to take this task on (I don't have the time to work on that right now.)

 Is anyone out there serious working on client/server right now, or has it
pretty much stagnated again?


> In summary, from my point of view, supporting two versions of the code
> slows things down and prevents me (and possibly others) from working
> on some improvements that I would like to add to Crossfire.  It should
> be a "political" decision to drop the old pseudo-client code and clean
> up the source tree, and you and Frank are probably the ones who should
> decide how/when/if this is done.

 In some sense, it is really two complete seperate versions.  For example, most
all of the code Brian has put in will be pretty much the same no matter how
client/server works out.  Anything interface related would need to go in both
versions, however.

>
> When (if?) only the new code is supported, it will be possible to
> improve the client and the server independently, thus allowing some
> people to make the user interface more attractive while others are
> adding new features to the server.  A better client would probably
> attract more people to Crossfire (and potential developers too).

 A new client is a good idea.  A wonder if a worthwhile strategy right now
might be to just make the client fully functional and not care too much about
network utilitization (as long as it isn't incredibly inefficient), and then
work on streamlining and cleaning it up at a later point.  A lot of people are
still playing on a local network, so efficiency isn't fully needed, but a
working client is.  Arguable, you could even make assumptions that the client
has full access to the pixmaps to start out, and worry about transferring them
at a later time.

 Right now, I think we need to look into anything that gets us a fully working
client.  You can hardly say use the client right now, when some things are not
supported.

-- 
 --Mark