On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 6:19 AM, progmars <[email protected]> wrote: > I would like Enet to focus on extensibility and versatility. > > Obviously, many of the requested features (streaming, NAT punchthrough, > packet loss and network lag simulation) do not belong to the Enet core, but > instead we could ask the question: does Enet provide everything to > implement all of those features in a clean way? If not, then Enet should be > modified to provide more extension points and necessary infrastructure to > support most of the typical usage scenarios mentioned in this thread. > > That was my thought too. I implemented NAT hole punch by calling the low level functions used in enet. They weren't exposed by default so I had to customize my version.
-- *http://xkcd.com/1156/* * *
_______________________________________________ ENet-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cubik.org/mailman/listinfo/enet-discuss
