I may just have to stick with nc.call and eat the penalty.
There is no counterpart to nc.call that does NOT expect a reply message?

Paul deCoursey wrote:
> How about this,  use nc.call to notify users when another user had 
> entered/exited it's range and have the client register/deregister SOs.  
> I'm not sure that will save much, setting up a SO might be an expensive 
> call.  Or perhaps the shared object for each user has a list of users in 
> range that the server just updates.... or would that entire list be sent 
> each time a single item in it is updated?
>
> Naicu Octavian wrote:
>   
>>> Suppose I only want to send position data to players that are within a
>>>       
>> certain range.  For example, anyone within 100 "meters".
>>
>> Your mileage will vary. If you have 1000 connected users and in each 
>> 100m radius there are only 10 users then nc.call can be a good 
>> decision! but in such a case you can also have a SO for each 100mx100m 
>> sqare radius,etc... .Depends on what you are trying to do!
>>
>> On 28/08/07, * Mike* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
>> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
>>
>>     Good point, Octavian.
>>     Suppose I only want to send position data to players that are within a
>>     certain range.
>>
>>     For example, anyone within 100 "meters".
>>
>>     SharedObjects don't really give me that luxury, do they?
>>     I may be forced to use nc.call?
>>     Or, is there another method?
>>
>>     Is there a version of nc.call that does NOT require a return message?
>>
>>     Naicu Octavian wrote:
>>     > >I agree with everything said here, but i must add something to
>>     defend
>>     > poor nc.call's :)
>>     >
>>     > Another thing is that with nc.call calls for the server to the
>>     clients
>>     > you can target specific clients. A ns.send sends the info to all
>>     > clients subscribed to that SO. This is a more general issue but
>>     good
>>     > to have in mind when one is developing a private messages
>>     feature for
>>     > example! :)
>>     >
>>     > --
>>     > Naicu Octavian,
>>     > Project Manager for AVChat
>>     > http://www.avchat.net <http://www.avchat.net>
>>     >
>>     > On 28/08/07, *Storm* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>     <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>     > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>>
>>     wrote:
>>     >
>>     >     I agree with everything said here, but i must add something to
>>     >     defend poor nc.call's :)
>>     >
>>     >     SOs may have a bad behaviour in some extreme cases such as
>>     >     updating right before disconnecting and such. I've had to
>>     change
>>     >     some functionality from SOs to nc.calls due to this, those "few
>>     >     bytes" of the callbacks are pretty useful to ensure that the
>>     >     update has been really recieved. Therefor everything has its
>>     >     place, even in a one-to-all update scenario.
>>     >
>>     >     Cheers
>>     >
>>     >
>>     >     On 8/28/07, *Joachim Bauch* < [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>     <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>     >     <mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>> wrote:
>>     >
>>     >         Dominick Accattato schrieb:
>>     >         [...]
>>     >         > Now, if you were talking about using the
>>     SharedObject.send
>>     >         method, you
>>     >         > may not need to bubble up to your application code,
>>     but your
>>     >         still being
>>     >         > sent to all the clients.  That being said, you should just
>>     >         use the
>>     >         > sharedObjects sync functionality anyway.
>>     >
>>     >         using so.send or SO syncs even saves you a few bytes
>>     bandwidth
>>     >         as for
>>     >         nc.call, the client sends back the result of the method
>>     call
>>     >         to the
>>     >         server (or the server back to the client) which isn't
>>     done for
>>     >         SO events.
>>     >         Well, just a few bytes ;) but if you have lots of calls...
>>     >
>>     >         Joachim
>>     >
>>     >
>>     >         _______________________________________________
>>     >         Red5 mailing list
>>     >         [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:
>>     [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
>>     >         http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/red5_osflash.org
>>     >
>>     >
>>     >
>>     >
>>     >     --
>>     >    
>>     -------------------------------------------------------------------
>>     >     If a man speaks in a forest and his wife is not there, is he
>>     still
>>     >     wrong?
>>     >
>>     >     _______________________________________________
>>     >     Red5 mailing list
>>     >     [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>>     <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
>>     >     http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/red5_osflash.org
>>     >
>>     >
>>     >
>>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>     >
>>     > _______________________________________________
>>     > Red5 mailing list
>>     > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>>     > http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/red5_osflash.org
>>     >
>>
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     Red5 mailing list
>>     [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>>     http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/red5_osflash.org
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Red5 mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/red5_osflash.org
>>   
>>     
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Red5 mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/red5_osflash.org
>
>
>   



_______________________________________________
Red5 mailing list
[email protected]
http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/red5_osflash.org

Reply via email to