Re: [QStat-devx] pariah...

[Steven H. <ki...@mu...>]

:) One of those things, same with a good portion of the server structure.
You can tell its evolved and one of those things that I always have to
look at when Im setting things up. Could do with a good old refactor
but as you say each protocol would then need major work.

What about we look at refactoring the structure so that new protocols
added are easier to do and then when we get time, go back and refactor
the old protocols. This would maintain 100% back compat but give us
a nice way forward. Similar in a way to how you've started creating
protocol modules in their own .c/.h files.

    Steve / K

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ludwig Nussel" <l-...@us...>

> Steven Hartland wrote:
>> All looks ok, haven't tested it but personally I'd go the other way
>> round, ie. use a state variable in the others as the current tests for
>> "have I finished" are very convoluted.
> 
> I fully agree, those conditions drive me nuts every time. However,
> if we change it we'd need to basically rewrite all protocols.



================================================
This e.mail is private and confidential between Multiplay (UK) Ltd. and the person or entity to whom it is addressed. In the event of misdirection, the recipient is prohibited from using, copying, printing or otherwise disseminating it or any information contained in it. 

In the event of misdirection, illegible or incomplete transmission please telephone (023) 8024 3137
or return the E.mail to pos...@mu....