#1
Posted 25 October 2013 - 04:18 PM
In the real world, there is a list of "well-known" TCP ports that are commonly in use by network services (such as Telnet=23 and FTP=21). It allows developers to know which ports to consider off-limits when they assign ports for a new service. So now that we have modem channels in ComputerCraft, I think we should begin to keep track of what programs use what channels, to reduce the chance of crosstalk/glitches when many programs are run on the same network. It looks like many of the programs here ignore packets that don't match their expected pattern - which is good - but now that we're not locked into the Rednet API anymore, it also makes sense for services to run on different channels. Thoughts?
#2
Posted 25 October 2013 - 08:04 PM
#3
Posted 25 October 2013 - 08:17 PM
If a program is good, and gets used very much then there should be allowed to get it's own rednet channel. That's the filter, the problem is: how do you know if a program gets used very much?
However, with or without filter I do agree that this unnecessary. Just confirm with your 'companion' and send the stuff you want to send.
#4
Posted 25 October 2013 - 09:24 PM
Also, I'm waiting for a server to get to the point of having so many computers that the rednet api errors saying that the channel is out of range
#5
Posted 26 October 2013 - 04:01 AM
Lyqyd, on 25 October 2013 - 08:04 PM, said:
theoriginalbit, on 25 October 2013 - 09:24 PM, said:
#6
Posted 26 October 2013 - 04:15 AM
sens, on 26 October 2013 - 04:01 AM, said:
#7
Posted 26 October 2013 - 04:33 AM
theoriginalbit, on 26 October 2013 - 04:15 AM, said:
theoriginalbit, on 26 October 2013 - 04:15 AM, said:
#8
Posted 26 October 2013 - 03:16 PM
sens, on 26 October 2013 - 04:01 AM, said:
Lyqyd, on 25 October 2013 - 08:04 PM, said:
That would be because it is tremendously useful. If your program is a general information server, yeah, you might want to use a specific channel, like GPS does. If you want point-to-point communication between two specific computers, it makes a lot of sense to use rednet, since that's what it is designed for. It provides a useful abstraction to simplify point-to-point communications, as well as providing a common interface that could be overridden by code that adds routing, so that point-to-point communication could be transported seamlessly across multiple hops to the destination. The shunning of rednet as "not advanced enough" is idiotic and a step in the wrong direction.
The list would be useless. The list would not ever be complete or properly maintained and there's no reason to even really care about conflicts. If your software can't handle malformed packets, that's really just too bad. Pick a port number you like or use rednet, either one.
#9
Posted 26 October 2013 - 03:42 PM
Lyqyd, on 26 October 2013 - 03:16 PM, said:
Lyqyd, on 26 October 2013 - 03:16 PM, said:
#10
Posted 29 January 2014 - 11:35 PM
sens, on 26 October 2013 - 03:42 PM, said:
I think that is exactly the point. It is a lower-level protocol.If you want to avoid collisions and stake out your own space, write your code in such away that it only responds to your communications, not to any rogue communications on the same channel. Minecraft (and ComputerCraft) are not intended to operate on enterprise-class security and networking principles. It may be fun to add features which approximate this (for coolness, education or whatnot), but it is not essential to the game.
#11
Posted 30 January 2014 - 03:44 AM
Edited by robhol, 30 January 2014 - 03:45 AM.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users