[crossfire] Metaserver info, was Re: Crossfire+/Crossfire2 Versioning and Metaserver

Alex Schultz alex_sch at telus.net
Sun Apr 15 02:42:56 CDT 2007


mwedel at sonic.net wrote:
> <snip>
The proposed fields you mentioned look good to me. One other quick
thought, is perhaps the "codebase" fields should have a flag or other
standard way of representing the case of something being mostly of a
"codebase" but with a minor patch or two.

>  Another question related to this is whether we should re-do the
> metaserver connection method all together - in shorter term, the servers
> could use both new and old methods to report data, but then at some
> point, they only use new method.  There were discussions in the past
> about this - I bring it up now, because if we add all these new fields,
> it may make it hard to keep things compatible.
And another thought, is if it would be worthwhile for a redone
metaserver connection method to actually be a distributed metaserver as
was once thought about a long while back. I'm not sure that would be
good, but if the connection method were to be redone, it would be worth
thinking about those sorts of things.

Alex



More information about the crossfire mailing list