XMLSocket connections

These are old archives. They are kept for historic purposes only.
UnrealIRCd head coder
Posts: 1938
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 8:57 pm
Location: .nl

Post by Syzop » Thu Mar 22, 2007 2:31 pm

Without commenting on whether to implement this or not...

What I find odd - quite odd actually! - is that you don't admit that many of these points raised by us are very valid and true.
So the question still needs to be answered, why should an IRCd change to meet the needs of a client?

If all clients demanded the IRCd's change to fit some new/old/changed feature they included nobody would want to write/maintain IRCd's or the IRCd's would become way too complicated.
valid point
Firstly you made the point Adobe wont change, so what makes you think Unreal will?
valid point

..snip boring other valid points..
But also take a look at the cgi:irc support, since when isn't cgi:irc a client ? Well it's almost the same as flash, it's also a technology to allow a new type of clients connecting.
cgi:irc, ssl, ziplinks, all clients can work without them. no valid point.
it doesn't require alot of code rewriting, just a listener and a client flag, and an extra line in the send code.
incorrect. to do it properly (and not just having nuls halfway a packet) it requires tens of lines. i know this, because i wrote a patch that does this for a customer. it's also very ugly, which is one of the main reasons why i didn't put it in unreal. not to mention, even my attempt still produced slightly ugly results. i don't like hackish implementations.

If you can admit (and believe), that the first two points I quoted are valid, then perhaps we can talk.
Right now it seems like you are saying that everyone should follow flash/etc and everyone who doesn't is 'wrong', while it's exactly the other way around.

Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 12:39 am

Post by GloX » Thu Mar 22, 2007 3:59 pm

I never disagreed with your "valid points". But I see flash as a technology, not as a client by itself, the actual implementation of the irc protocol still rests with the author of the flash file. My point being, why not just implement it ? Make it a configure flag to enable it even if you don't want it in a source, or even an "official" patch. I just see unrealircd as a good all-around ircd with lot's of nice features, and it would be nice to write a webbased chat with flash for it. Flash is the browser plugin with the highest peneration, and it doesn't cause any overhead on the webserver, as opposed to keepalive (cgi) irc clients or clients that use polling (ajax)).

Alot of people are intrested in this, there are already alot of hacked versions of unreal going around.

And yes I forgot about incomplete lines being sent. It doesn't really make a difference in flash if you use a buffer. I'm willing to go with you over the code and make a clean implementation if you are still intrested.

I appologise if I sounded rude, that was not my intention.

Head of Support
Posts: 2086
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 8:50 pm
Location: Chino Hills, CA, US

Post by Stealth » Thu Mar 22, 2007 5:56 pm

If Unreal had flash support implimented, I would be one to use it. Flash clients are much smoother and faster than Java, ActiveX, and CGI

UnrealIRCd head coder
Posts: 1938
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 8:57 pm
Location: .nl

Post by Syzop » Thu Mar 22, 2007 6:40 pm

Ok GloX, I guess it's clear you don't agree then. No problem, no hard feelings, really :).

It's then decided this is on medium-term instead of short-term, and I'll be using an alternative more generic approach/interface that I already had in mind for some other stuff. Probably a better idea anyway than a quick&dirty implementation.

Thanks all for your input.

I think it's only fair if I lock this topic now, since it's a feature request alike topic, and should have been on bugs.* anyway :).

When there are any flash-related developments in Unreal, I'll post them here.