[londonlaw-users] Re: my archive
- From: Paul Pelzl <pelzlpj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: londonlaw-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 17:05:46 -0500
On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 03:33:34PM -0600, Conor Davis wrote:
> Paul Pelzl wrote:
>
> >[...]
> >
> >So, at this point, I guess I'd be inclined to continue working off my
> >server code. But if you have any compelling arguments in favor of
> >switching to your server, I'd like to hear them.
> >
> >
> >
>
> Fine by me. There are some bits from my server that I think are worth
> keeping:
>
> * Optional tags
Yes. That would simplify debugging.
> * Using the client state + command name to find the correct method
> to call for a given command
Can you elaborate on that? My server has one method per command... are
you just suggesting that those methods should be broken up into smaller
functions?
> * Raising exceptions to indicate command failure or bad commands
Agreed.
> >I think a rigid command syntax will be adequate for our needs. Rather
> >than accepting optional arguments, we can just use different commands
> >for different numbers of args. For example, I am using command "join"
> >to enter a new game room (no password required), and "rejoin" to enter
> >an old in-progress game (password required). Similarly, command "move"
> >vs. "doublemove". The number of options is pretty limited, so I think
> >using multiple commands is a good solution.
> >
>
> What if a variant wants to allow for, say, a triple move?
Well, frankly, I can't imagine allowing a triple move. That could
easily carry someone halfway across the map! But, hypothetically speaking,
it wouldn't be a big deal to have N different move commands for, say,
N <= 4. And aside from that issue, I am having a hard time thinking of
commands which need to have more flexibility.
> My server is rigid because the command dispatch framework is responsible
> for validating the number and content of the arguments. If, instead, the
> actual command routine validates the arguments, then we can be more
> flexible.
In my server, the command routines validate the arguments. So it would
be possible to be more flexible, if necessary.
Paul
==============================================================
The London Law Users mailing list
londonlaw-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
List info: //www.freelists.org/list/londonlaw-users
==============================================================
Other related posts:
