[crossfire] Moving server towards a modularized system?

[Miguel Ghobangieno]

MWedel just talked about a complete redesign in his
latest post. Things that are redesigned tend to be
broken for 1 or 2 years. I could be dead in 1 or 2
years, so could any of us. I'd rather not wait around.


--- Yann Chachkoff <yann.chachkoff at myrealbox.com>
wrote:

> > 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.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> crossfire mailing list
> crossfire at metalforge.org
>
http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com