Re: Network protocol for Expert QotW #23

Bruce J Keeler <[email protected]> writes:

> Why not just use one port and have each connection tell the server what
> it is?  When I read the original protocol you proposed, I thought this
> bit:
>
>         PLAYER1 [Comment]
>         PLAYER2 [Comment]
>         SPECTATOR [Comment]
>         
> was client -> server; I only now realized it wasn't upon re-reading. 
> But it could be.

I suppose, though in that case we also need to define server responses
for "request successful" and "someone else is already PLAYER1", though
I suppose we could always just have the program ask and the server
respond with the result, but that gets messy.

Also, someone posted earlier about sequence numbers on CHOOSE commands
- those would be nice, but I don't think that the numbers should be
optional.  Either we decide to use sequence numbers or we don't.  INFO
is the space for optional stuff.