[crossfire] Moving server towards a modularized system?

[Yann Chachkoff]

> I don't think it would be wise to remove the hacks, the hacks make things work as they should.

Hacks are what the name imply: "dirty fixes". By "removing hacks", it simply means "replacing them by something cleaner that does the same job". Which benefits from code clarity, ease of debugging, and probably performances as well. We already removed some in the past, so that's simply a restatement that the efforts in that should continue.

> If someone want's to create a RPG engine   crossfire, in my opinion, is not the place to do it.
>
It is the exact place where to discuss about what we want to do with Crossfire, being maintaining it in its current state, expanding it or making it more generic. See the description of the list: "This list is used for general discussion and questions, answers, and latest changes and updates." This is general discussion around the game, so that discussion is perfectly in sync with that definition. If you don't like it, don't answer to it - simple as that.

> Crossfire is a game in it's own right, 

I never said the contrary.

> we should be concerned with our game, not some theoretical developers who might want to make their own game.

I'm not speaking about "theoretical developers" - I'm speaking about those who (hopefully) will still play with crossfire and its code long after we don't. I'm thinking about all the ideas that could get implemented much more easily on a cleaner base than on a patchwork of code.

No, I don't suggest working towards a cleaner and more generic code just for the sake of a handful of theoretical developers. I'm suggesting it to make *our* own developments easier and faster, to have a workbasis that we can expand further than what can be achieved now. We have wonderful game mechanisms in most cases, that can rival or even outclass those of a lot of commercial (successful games). I think that adding a new spell or a new object type to Crossfire should be as simple as writing a new map, so that new gaming mechanisms can get quickly implemented and tested - I don't see this as the benefit of a few coders, but a benefit for all players, who wouldn't have to wait for ages to get bugs solved or new, interesting ideas implemented.

Maybe you're satisfied with the rythm at which your proposals are tested and implemented. I am not, and I believe a good structure would speed the process up a bit.

> We have media, we are beyond framework.

Nonsense. Just because we have code doesn't mean that its structure is of good quality, or that staying forever with it is satisfying. 

Given that you never had to add stuff in the Crossfire code, I suggest that you first try to do so, and *then* speak about your experience, as I really don't think you have any knowledge of the difficulties involved with the current codebase.

Finally, I'd suggest not to introduce notions you obviously don't understand. By "framework" in this case, I was speaking about "a structure supporting a style of game"; or, if you prefer that term, a "generic, structured core of functions". The Media/Framework model has *nothing* to do with that. I don't think there can be any sane debate if you don't even understand the terms used.