=- ChronosWS wrote on Mon  2.Apr'07 at 20:46:04 -0700 -=

> Speaking of the network protocol, has there been any discussion of
> tuning it up and throwing away compatibility with older servers?
> Much of the existing protocol assumes C-style block serialization,
> fixed field sizes and the like. These restrictions and design
> choices are not necessarily required any more. Also, what about
> altering the update interval such that it is dynamic based on
> events, rather than based on strict time base?

Who do you expect to answer or even decide this?

As you might have noticed from my requests and rections to them,
nobody wants to answer the call for responsibility + control, but
many easily throw in their opinions and expect that somebody picks
them up to either implement them or to stop somebody from
implementing them. Pretty messy with no clear direction.

> Should a separate thread be spawned to discuss these or are
> those decisions already made?

Yes, please, and don't repeat my mistake of being too lazy:
change to a better fitting subject as the thread topic changes, or
even start a new thread.

(damn, who inserted all the TABS in the subject of this thread?!)

© Rado S. -- You must provide YOUR effort for your goal!
EVERY effort counts: at least to show your attitude.
You're responsible for ALL you do: you get what you give.