[crossfire] Moving server towards a modularized system?

[Yann Chachkoff]

Le Mardi 17 Janvier 2006 02:56, Miguel Ghobangieno a écrit :
> It is not half broken as far as I can tell. Yes it's
> not running on MF, that doesn't mean it's broken. 
>
So having trees growing on sea squares isn't broken ?

> It gives few problems on Cat2. This whole thing is about
> slowly dumping whatever MF doesn't use. 
>
It is not about "moving code out of Crossfire", but about "re-organizing it so 
it is easier to manage". Which, as a side note, should help debugging chunks 
like the weather system and provide fixes without even having to rebuild and 
restart the whole server.

If you read what I typed earlier, you'd note that I think random maps should 
get modularized as well - and AFAIK, it is used extensively on MF. Let's 
repeat it again: modularizing code is *not* about removing functionalities; 
it is *not* about scrapping code out of the main CVS tree. It is mostly a 
structural change to make an easier maintenance for those wanting to work on 
such pieces of code - so it is in fact a way to make them *better* supported.

> Open your eyes, the 2nd biggest server runs weather code at it's
> most extreme, in terms of players that's not "a few".
>
That there are many players on Cat2 doesn't make the weather system less 
broken.

> I suggest you not implement a huge worthless code change that is nothing but 
busy work. 
>
That's indeed an opinion based on emotion rather than facts, unfortunately.

> I reject your assertion that cave's analogy is flawed as it is not.
>
Tell me how it isn't, then, or stop the "nah, nah, nah" song. 

> If you want to code code something new useful rather then breaking the 
server as is what will happen if you go forward with this plan. 
>
Breaking the server always occur when a new functionality that is larger than 
a few lines of code is implemented (everybody makes mistakes, even skilled 
coders). And given that I see it as useful, I would have no problem "breaking 
it".

> You also will be holding off any new large codechanges for months as they 
wait for you to be done with this not-needed reshuffling.
>
I don't see why. Moving existing parts of the code into modules doesn't mean 
development on other parts of the code would suddenly be halted "for months". 
And I could return you the argument: the completely optional "get drunk when 
drinking" functionality you suggested would block the more important 
restructuration of the code, probably for a couple of weeks - where's the 
difference ?

You could of course object that "players want to get drunk, but don't give a 
damn about an obscure change in the code". Presented like that, sure. But 
wouldn't a server that is easier to maintain, debug, and extend have a more 
in-depth impact on the players in particular, and the game interest in 
general ? I think it does, even if it means that the priority is set on 
changes that are not immediately visible to players.
-- 
Yann Chachkoff
-----------------------
Garden Dwarf's Best Friend
-----------------------
GPG Key    : http://keyserver.veridis.com:11371/export?id=9080288987474372064
Fingerprint: 6616 2E02 BAD2 4AEF C90A  F1EB 7E03 AAB9 844D 25E0
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://shadowknight.real-time.com/pipermail/crossfire/attachments/20060117/19945b4c/attachment-0001.pgp