#17 Server list management feature

Lord Vajra

I have a few things to suggest about feature related server
list management.

I tried v0.5.0 gui two days ago, and the gui removed 5 out of 6
servers I kept on server list.
I think it was similar situation mentioned in bug report 637935.
I hate that feature of GUI. Why not leave them be and wait
until they come back online?
Of course, I understand why that feature exists. But, if you
want to make that feature something useful, you should let
users set some servers as 'sticky'. I don't want a server
that I used to connect over a month removed for a few hours
offline status.
I still use alpha-unstable-20020525 gui, just because of that
auto removal feature.

Another problem about server list is there are too many
garbage servers. Why not filter out servers on private ip
And there's too many useless servers. It is just waste of
RAM capacity that keeping information about 4000+ ping
servers and 10 client servers.
So I don't even want to receive server list from the server I
connected to. I want to keep my server list as I managed by
hand. Because, I know which version of donkey core works
best on my linux box, and I know which server accepts my
donkey and perfoms well.

As solution for two matters I mentioned, I suggest a server
list file managed separated from core by GUI. When GUI
connect to the core, GUI replace server list in core with
server list in GUI server list file. Doing that automatically is
not a good idea, GUI must provide two buttons. One for save
current server list to the GUI server list file, another for
replace server list of core with GUI server list file.


  • Tim-Philipp Muller

    Logged In: YES

    You can filter out servers with private IP addresses.

    Either right-click on the serverlist and choose
    servers->remove invalid IPs, or switch on the option
    'automatically remove invalid servers'.

    If you don't want core or GUI to remove servers when they
    don't respond to udp pings, then just switch off the
    'automatically remove dead servers' option. Then you can
    manage it all by hand :-)

    I don't really think RAM is really an issue in the serverlist.
    We're talking a couple of kilobytes altogether here. That's
    negligible IMHO.

    To be honest, I personally don't have much energy to
    implement all this serverlist finesse any more. The core does
    not handle this stuff very well (increasing probability of
    segfaults, as it's just too easy to mess up the core with
    connect requests and the like). I see overnet as the future,
    and I don't think eDonkey will play any major role in 6-9
    months time, so I'm kind of reluctant to put a lot of effort into
    even finer server list control.

    Patches are always accepted of course :-)

  • Tim-Philipp Muller

    • assigned_to: nobody --> uberdork

Get latest updates about Open Source Projects, Conferences and News.

Sign up for the SourceForge newsletter:

No, thanks