>>that are none-the-less realistic and not overly complicated? >>I don't know if this would be a good idea, but
---I always prefer to hear the perspective of the end user over the perspective of a programmer. End users tend to think with their imagination while programmers tend to think it terms of limitations. A generalization to be sure, but that's been my experience.--- So, humbly, I think than open a *brainstorming process* for catching features is a good idea. For brainstorming is interesting do not impose initial conditions or restrictions to contributions. P.S: Sorry for my English :-( DJuego On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Director De Juego <[email protected]> wrote: > Uah!. I am interested Benoit!! I am very newbie with ENet, but I am sure i > will need streaming sooner or later. Your streaming facility could teach us > about the topic... > > P.S. Including in the official distro seems a good idea to me. > > DJuego > > > On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Benoit Germain <[email protected]>wrote: > >> I have used for a little while a streaming facility that can transfer >> large amount of stuff. It is based on the latest ENet version and doesn't >> break protocol; it's more like a high level service. I can share if you are >> interested (and maybe this could be included in the official distro :-) >> >> >> 2013/4/30 Nuno Silva <[email protected]> >> >>> It would be interesting if there was a standard way to transfer large >>> amounts of data over ENet. Some of us might need to e.g., do video >>> streaming, but the way to transfer the data might not be ideal or the best >>> unless we're quite good at networking already (which I am not). I don't >>> know if this would be a good idea, but I just wanted you to at least >>> consider it. >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Lee Salzman <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> So, I'm just thinking in the back of my mind what sort of things would >>>> be desired in a hypothetical version 2.0 of ENet that broke API >>>> compatibility and so could do things that would otherwise not be possible >>>> in a 1.x release. >>>> >>>> That doesn't mean that a 2.0 is in the near future, but I'd like to get >>>> a dialogue going about it. >>>> >>>> Aside from IPv6 support, are there any other big things people would >>>> want that are none-the-less realistic and not overly complicated? >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> ENet-discuss mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://lists.cubik.org/mailman/listinfo/enet-discuss >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ENet-discuss mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.cubik.org/mailman/listinfo/enet-discuss >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Benoit. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ENet-discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.cubik.org/mailman/listinfo/enet-discuss >> >> >
_______________________________________________ ENet-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cubik.org/mailman/listinfo/enet-discuss
