ENET_PACKET_FLAG_RELIABLE
ENET_PACKET_FLAG_UNSEQUENCED
ENET_PACKET_FLAG_UNSEQUENCED + ENET_PACKET_FLAG_UNRELIABLE_FRAGMENT
ENET_PACKET_FLAG_UNRELIABLE_FRAGMENT
Those are basically the only used combinations of those flags.
ENET_PACKET_FLAG_NO_ALLOCATE works with any of them.
I make no promises as to the reserved status of unused bits in the packet
flags. If you use a bit that I happen to need for a new flag, you're out of
luck. But I am likely to only use bits in sequence, so if you must use some
bits for your own purposes, use the higher bits, not the lower ones.
On 06/06/2011 05:27 PM, Benoit Germain wrote:
Hello,
Just wanted to know which packet flag combinations are legal?
Currently we have
ENET_PACKET_FLAG_RELIABLE
ENET_PACKET_FLAG_UNSEQUENCED
ENET_PACKET_FLAG_NO_ALLOCATE
ENET_PACKET_FLAG_UNRELIABLE_FRAGMENT
I suppose that ENET_PACKET_FLAG_NO_ALLOCATE is a bit different, since
it is specified at packet creation, not when packet is sent.
But regarding the 3 other flags, the doc ENetPacket doc says: "... The
flags field is either 0 (specifying no flags), or a bitwise-or of any
combination of the following flags".
However, I have difficulty imagining what I get when using
ENET_PACKET_FLAG_RELIABLE + ENET_PACKET_FLAG_UNRELIABLE_FRAGMENT.
It also says that ENET_PACKET_FLAG_UNSEQUENCED is not supported for
ENET_PACKET_FLAG_RELIABLE.
So, all in all, it looks like we can have 4 or 5 legal combinations:
ENET_PACKET_FLAG_RELIABLE
ENET_PACKET_FLAG_UNSEQUENCED
ENET_PACKET_FLAG_UNRELIABLE_FRAGMENT
ENET_PACKET_FLAG_UNSEQUENCED + ENET_PACKET_FLAG_UNRELIABLE_FRAGMENT
ENET_PACKET_FLAG_RELIABLE + ENET_PACKET_FLAG_UNRELIABLE_FRAGMENT ?
Is this correct?
Also regarding packet flags, I happen to use another bit for my own
purpose. It doesn't seem to hurt ENet operations, and I haven't seen
code that could be affected by this. But is is something I can
dependably rely on?
Regards,
_______________________________________________
ENet-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cubik.org/mailman/listinfo/enet-discuss
