[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: [pygame] SOC Proposal: Networking for Pygame
Even though you could claim >USEREVENT event numbers in a way that
would be unlikely to collide with existing code, I think if you are in
a situation where you have to do that, it's a sign of a larger issue -
which is that the new module would be poorly integrated with pygame's
event queues.
I personally don't see any advantage to having network "events" come
through as pygame events, if the module can't actually be integrated
into the SDL event stuff in a seamless way. In particular, if a
function like "pygame.network.pump_events" and
"pygame.network.dicovery.pump_events" needs to exist and be called,
it's a confusing step because it is inconsistent with other modules
(there's no pygame.mouse.pump_events, for instance)
Also, having to integrate the packet handling into your main loop
wouldn't necessarily help you have good design - for some network
models, it makes a lot more sense to encapsulate the communication
with a particular connection in it's own object, so if the packets
came through as pygame events, many games would just be implementing
their own buffering/translation of the packets from the pygame event
which are then read for individual player objects and stuff. (I also
find it interesting that SDL_net didn't bother to try to integrate
with the event queue)
I say if you don't have the network stuff fully integrated into SDL's
events, it's better to make network packet recieving and lobby-type
event features have their own explicit monolithic API.
On 5/7/06, Bob Ippolito <bob@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
It's not really a risk. You would simply just decide on a default
event number, and allow it to be overridden by the developer when
they want to.
-bob
On May 7, 2006, at 6:20 PM, Frode Jensen
> Bryce Allen beat me to starting the discussion here, but it is
> already going well. I have some questions regarding the SDL events,
> and how a networking module would use these. Since there (afaik)
> isn't any standard network events a implementation would have to
> use USEREVENT or higher. Wouldn't this be a risk, both to existing
> code and to the networking code itself? The risk being events that
> are interpretted as being of a type, when its not, and thereby
> causing faulty data or attribute errors. Measures can be taken to
> protect the networking module, and since there isn't many games
> with network support yet the potential damage isn't that big so I
> guess it could be sacrificed, but it isn't a pretty solution.
>