[crossfire] Metaserver2 / schmorp

[Mark Wedel]

Yann Chachkoff wrote:
> Le mardi 11 septembre 2007, Mark Wedel a écrit :
>> Nicolas Weeger wrote:
>>> Hello.
>>>
>>> Schmorp server appears on metaserver2. But the officiel client (latest)
>>> SVN does *not* work with this server.
>>>
>>> This server shouldn't be on metaserver2 until it supports the official
>>> Crossfire client, since metaserver2 is the future 2.0 version.
> <snip>
>>   As such, it would seem banning servers from metaserver2 because they do
>> not support latest trunk would be wrong, because that would likely result
>> in us banning 1.x servers also.
>>
> I don't see this as a problem: keep the metaserver version 1 for 1.xx servers, 
> and the metaserver2 for 2.xx versions.

  That is certainly an option, although I did backport the metaserver2 support 
to the 1.x branches.

  One thought behind that was for the metaserver1 to go away.  Another was for 
clients to filter out incompatible servers, so for example, if I connect with a 
2.x client and because of protocol changes it is not compatible with 1.x 
servers, it wouldn't even show them in the selection list (and vice versa for 
1.x clients on 2.x servers)


>>   If schmorp was not playable with either the 1.x client or trunk client,
>> then it seems reasonable it shouldn't be listed.
>>
> If we let incompatible servers in either of the metaserver lists, then what 
> will new players think of the game when they attempt to connect with the 
> wrong version of the client to a given server ?
> 
> This could be excused if one connects with a client marked "2.x", to a server 
> marked "1.x" - the difference would give him a clue about the problem. But 
> what when he connects to a "2.x-trt" with a trunk client, and sees it fail ?

  That is why I think the client should be modified to not show/drop entries 
from servers that are not compatible with the client.  Thus, the player would 
never see a 2.x-trt server if in fact the client they have won't be able to play 
on it.


> You are the boss. Why does it take so long dodging around the problem ? Is the 
> 2.x-trt server fully compliant with 2.x (trunk) clients ? No. Hence its 
> marking is not proper, its presence in metaserver 2 isn't either, so scrap it 
> from it - problem solved.

  If we agree that metaserver2 is only for 2.x clients/servers, I agree with 
that.  But I'd personally rather see metaserver1 go away, and the clients filter 
out entries that they are not compatible with (if one looks way forward, this 
could get repeated with 3.0 - do we want to/need to set up another metaserver 
for that?  Maybe).