On Mon, Mar 04, 2013 at 11:31:33AM +0100, Sven Neuhaus wrote: > Am 02.03.2013 02:40, schrieb Andrew Sillers: > > My proxy is a simple Websocket-to-TCP proxy, which can easily be run on > > the same machine as the actual server. > > Nice. However, we want to take advantage of WebRTC's capability to use > UDP! I think proxy-wise all we need to support WebRTC would be something > to initiate the UDP peer2peer connection [in this case between the > browser and the netrek server acting as WebRTC endpoint], we could > hopefully reuse most of the normal netrek UDP protocol (inside WebRTC) > once the packets are flowing. > > Now, on the client side with JavaScript, the original binary Netrek > protocol is probably a pain to deal with(?), so perhaps using something > simple yet compact (JSON comes to mind) would be better (even at the > cost of higher bandwidth usage). Yes, the original binary Netrek protocol is somewhat difficult to deal with using today's application languages, and has a few hidden behaviours that are surprising. JSON is used by the Gytha Netrek client for maintaining the achievements data on the user's filesystem. I picked it for minimum coding time. In the context of the network protocol though, JSON is a reasonable tradeoff between compressibility, coding time, and performance. It is a well known format. But I can't stop thinking of JSON as just another instance of Lisp s-expressions! ;-) A server side protocol translator would not be difficult. I don't see any great need to tightly integrate it into the shared memory system used by ntserv and daemon. -- James Cameron http://quozl.linux.org.au/