Fork me on GitHub
  November 17, 2018, 03:09:09 pm
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
  Home Help Search Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 [2] 3
16  Mineserver / Discussion / Re: Events based .NET API on: April 03, 2011, 01:23:46 pm
If people are against bringing in Java, why would they link to .NET ?
I mean after all, they both run in a VM.

I just recently used a program that could convert Java bytecode to CLR bytecode.
I had it run the original minecraft server just to see that it was using slightly more
resources than the Java version.

This might not even apply in any other cases, but i think the differences in performance
between Java and .NET are neglectable.
17  Mineserver / Discussion / Re: What does Mineserver need to get off the ground quickly? on: April 03, 2011, 12:10:39 pm
If i am not mistaken ++i is an rvalue as well.
I have never written code in C++ but in most languages i know you can write something like
int i = 0;
int j = ++i;

It's just about whether i is incremented before setting j or afterwards, isn't it?
18  Mineserver / Discussion / Re: What does Mineserver need to get off the ground quickly? on: April 02, 2011, 08:27:35 pm
A little offtopic:
Is there a difference between ++i and i++ except for when the incrementation is done?
19  Mineserver / Discussion / Re: What does Mineserver need to get off the ground quickly? on: April 01, 2011, 03:31:36 pm
I've only had a few looks at the source code and to me it looked like there was
no central place at which protocol handling takes place. At least not for server->client
It might be a good idea to somehow write classes or functions to generically
send data to clients. That might ease optimizations and makes finding/fixing bugs easier.

Oh, btw:
In constants.h:156
const int PROTOCOL_VERSION = 9;

Changing that to 10 should allow 1.4 clients to connect.
20  Mineserver / Discussion / Re: What does Mineserver need to get off the ground quickly? on: April 01, 2011, 02:16:45 pm
As for compatibility with 1.4 it should be enough to change the Protocol version from 9 to 10. No new client side packets have been added as far as i can tell.
21  Mineserver / Development / Re: Basic questions about the development process on: April 01, 2011, 01:19:47 pm
I think most (all?) contributions are done via pull requests on Github.
22  Mineserver / Discussion / Re: What does Mineserver need to get off the ground quickly? on: April 01, 2011, 01:17:20 pm
The most comprehensive documentation of the protocol that I know of is located here:

If i am not mistaken, Mineserver was developed with that description in mind.
23  Mineserver / Development / Minesec on: March 28, 2011, 11:15:47 am

nobody seemes to have noticed the bug reports i filed at you bug tracker.
I uploaded a tiny proof-of-concept program that can be used to test the
bugs i reported.
I will add more test cases as i get to know about possibly new bugs.
(I'm not quite sure if that link works for you, in case of doubt just upload the file again)

Usage should be fairly intuitive.
24  Mineserver / Support / Re: Bug tracker: 502 bad gateway on: March 20, 2011, 08:54:46 pm
Sounds like all of the CGI daemons died. But i'm not sure,
only used nginx once.
Anyways, i suppose it's a temporary problem that the person hosting that bug tracker
will have to fix.
25  Mineserver / Plugins / Re: The new Plugin API on: March 20, 2011, 11:56:50 am
Java offers the JNI (Java Native Interface) through which it is possible to call Java code
from C/C++ and (with a few restrictions) the other way round as well. So it's technically
possible, however, i think a lot of people fear that bridging to Java code would make
Mineserver slower, and more resource hungry.
There are however compilers which are able to produce native executables from Java code,
but i don't know if that would really solve the actual problem.
26  Mineserver / Development / Re: Plugin API vulnerabilities on: March 16, 2011, 05:04:50 am
I already said i was wrong. So what's the point of offending me like that?
As for your ludicrious accusations concerning my lack of interest in other
people's post: you are completely wrong this time.
I don't think you have any right to assume something like that.

Anyways, as i said. I'm out of this discussion, which turned pointless a few
posts ago. Feel free to make more fancy posts about me. I will probably read
them, but i will certainly not waste more time replying to your trolling.

27  Mineserver / Development / Re: Plugin API vulnerabilities on: March 15, 2011, 09:49:19 am
At least i refrained from judging your person(s).
I don't really know anything about Hyper-Threading, so i might of course be wrong there.
So yea, i see you're pretty sure that you want to go the multi-threading hype, so i'll stop
arguing here.
28  Mineserver / Development / Re: Plugin API vulnerabilities on: March 14, 2011, 03:54:55 pm
I think you underestimate the speed of todays CPUs.
As far as i know threads should only be used when things block on IO or take a lot of time
and can't be done non-blocking.

I think it might be feasible to spawn one thread or process for a regions of a certain size,
because chunks are independent from each other in theory.

Oh, and i fact, threads only boost performance on Multi-Core processors.
29  Mineserver / Development / Re: Plugin API vulnerabilities on: March 14, 2011, 12:33:36 am
The original Java server is multi-threaded, i don't see where it has more performance.
Multi-threading should, in my opinion, only be considered if Mineserver should
ever even run into performance issues.
Multi threading sounds like a cool thing, but it brings lots of problems. Locking,
synchronisation. Minecraft requires a lot of data reads and writes. I think the performance
you might gain by running several threads are lost, when threads have to wait for
resources to become available.

As of now, nothing in the server is blocking, so i don't think multithreading would make it any faster.
30  Mineserver / Development / Re: Plugin API vulnerabilities on: March 13, 2011, 12:14:52 am
Question might be a bit off topic,
but why should Mineserbe be multi-threaded again?
Pages: 1 [2] 3
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!