> That is certainly an option, although I did backport the metaserver2 > support to the 1.x branches. > > One thought behind that was for the metaserver1 to go away. Another was > for clients to filter out incompatible servers, so for example, if I > connect with a 2.x client and because of protocol changes it is not > compatible with 1.x servers, it wouldn't even show them in the selection > list (and vice versa for 1.x clients on 2.x servers) > Then, I wonder why the TRT servers are not filtered out, given that they're clearly not compatible with the trunk client.
> That is why I think the client should be modified to not show/drop > entries from servers that are not compatible with the client. Thus, the > player would never see a 2.x-trt server if in fact the client they have > won't be able to play on it. > Indeed. The problem is when the server itself is not "honest", and does not report accurate information. - Should I remind you that TRT is reporting "Standard" for the arch, map, and code base ? - Should I remind you that TRT is reporting "2.2" as its version string, increasing the confusion furthermore ? - Should I also underline that TRT reports "1026/1023" as the protocol version, despite the fact it uses elements that were never included in the original Crossfire 1026/1023 protocol ? I agree that the filtering is the solution to sort out between the various versions of servers reporting accurate information. But I do think it isn't an option for servers who don't "play nice" with the metaserver2, reporting false informations just to increase their visibility - for those, blacklisting (until the issues can be solved with the server administrator) seems to be the only option.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ crossfire mailing list crossfire@metalforge.org http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire
