From: Gary Barnett (gbarnett@POLARNET.COM)
Date: 11/03/97

On Monday, November 03, 1997 4:36 PM, Daniel Koepke
[SMTP:dkoepke@CALIFORNIA.COM] wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Nov 1997, Doppleganger Software wrote:
> ->I got a question for Jeremy that I don't recall seeing in the FAQ.  Why
> ->"Circle"?  (Blame all the talk about manholes, but I had to know)
> Geez, newbie!  Don't you even look for the answers?  <grin> Seriously,
> the answer is availible if you look.  Circle is named because that
> was, if I recall correctly, part of the host name of the server on
> which Jeremy's MUD originally ran.
> BTW, on the manhole thing, saying, "so they won't fall through," is
> kindof dumb.  I would think they're round because manholes are round.
A square manhole cover would do a nice job a spearing a foot if dropped...

 Given the increasing amount of packet loss I have been experiencing, the
 idea presented itself:

 1) Instead of just sending one packet, send a configurable number (1-10)
 2) Create a special telnet client that will disregard packets with the
     "new" packet number that are duplicates of one's it's seen already.

 In essence blast a bunch of packets in the hopes that one gets through.

 The question: How would you go about modifying Circle's socket i/o routines
 allow this?  Would this _require_ UDP or is there some way to get around the
 standard ack response requirement in order for things to stay synced?

 Flameproofing Section:

 Consider that a mudding uses less bandwidth for the
 entire session than is used in visiting a few graphical sites.


Neither sweat, nor blood, nor frustration, nor lousy manuals
nor missing parts, nor wrong parts shall keep me from my task.
  --Christopher Hicks

     | Ensure that you have read the CircleMUD Mailing List FAQ:  |
     | |

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/08/00 PST