Re: CF: Telnet-interface for 0.95.1

["Mark Wedel" <mark@icp.siemens.com>]

On Jan 20,  3:36pm, Christian Stieber wrote:
> Subject: Re: CF: Telnet-interface for 0.95.1
> Mark Wedel (mark@icp.siemens.com) wrote:
>
> >  But also, if the metaserver is sending packets, it could get frozen (if
> > connecting to the telnet port, the metaserver could end up waiting a few
> > minutes if that remote host is down).  Now this can be gotten around by
> > threading or other ideas, but starts making the metaserver a bit more
> > complicated.
>
> Hm... sounds reasonable. Anyway, no problem with UDP, and a good reason
> against TCP :-)

 The above was following up on your idea to have the metaserver connect to the
standard telnet port (13326).  That is still tcp.

>
>
> Sounds ok. However, the original idea was that players don't actually
> telnet to the servers. Instead a bunch of CGI programs would handle
> these things.  I already have a little program that uses my telnet
> interface and prints that information to stdout --- which can be used
> by CGI scripts to create webpages. So players would, for example, access
> http://www.crossfire.org/servers.cgi and get a list of servers. I already
> want tp include the current player count in each update packet, so the
> player would get a list of servers, the number of players on each server
> and the last update time. There could be "hiscore", "who" , "players",
> "motd", "info" buttons for each server --- or the list could be a scrolling
> list (instead of a table), so players can select a server and press
> the button to get the correspoding information. The CGI script on the
> webserver would do the telnetting. That's also how the who and hiscore
> webpages for my server are created.

 I think a non web way of getting that information is desired.  Ideally, having
something simple enough such that the client can actually connect to the
metaserver and present the options to the player and then connect to the server
the play decides on would be very nice


> Quick? Okay, if you say so :-) I just think it's funny how different people
> see things differently --- I sort of considered 15 minutes to be ages,
> but didn't want to send updates too frequently :-)
>
> On the other hand --- when I'm thinking about it: crossfire is not like
> xblast --- it's a long-term server. It doesn't make sense for a
> crossfire-server to pop up for 5 minutes or so.

 Well, my thought was that with using udp packets every 5 minutes, it means
that only a few packets need to get lost in transmission and that server is
marked as down.


-- 

-- Mark Wedel
mark@pyramid.com
-
[you can put yourself on the announcement list only or unsubscribe altogether
by sending an email stating your wishes to crossfire-request@ifi.uio.no]