Mudder
Sorcerer
Group: Members
Posts: 328
Joined: Oct 17, 2009
|
#1 id:51521 Posted Oct 5, 2010, 8:18 pm
|
So I remember hearing a little about mudstandards.org not being what it set out to be. I did a quick search on this forum and didn't get a result (I admit I didn't try hard)
Is it a good resource to get the protocols from? Is it actually a standard people are following?
Or should I search elsewhere for protocols like MXP, MCCP, etc?
Are there still differences with MXP for Mushclient and CMUD?
|
......................... A wise man once said:Never underestimate a newbie coder and the sheer amount of spare time they may accumulate.
RaM Fire Development Team. ROM from C to C++
Developing a tinymudserver codebase.
|
|
|
|
Rudha
Sorcerer
Group: Members
Posts: 468
Joined: Aug 15, 2010
|
#3 id:51526 Posted Oct 5, 2010, 10:33 pm
|
Quote:it seems like the discussions just died off... with everyone packing up their toys and heading back to their own sandboxes.
That was my impression too though I don't understand quite why that came about.
Maya/Rudha
|
|
.........................
Ráðumk þér Loddfáfnir, en þú ráð nemir, njóta mundu ef þú nemr, þér munu góð ef þú getr:
orðum skipta þú skalt aldregi við ósvinna apa -
því at af illum manni mundu aldregi góðs laun um geta, en góðr maðr mun þik gørva mega líknfastan at lofi.
|
|
|
|
Kaz
Conjurer
Group: Members
Posts: 130
Joined: Oct 31, 2009
|
#5 id:51528 Posted Oct 6, 2010, 1:51 am
|
David Haley said:Do you want the long version or the short version...? 
It shouldn't be surprising that the community effort fell apart once it became clear that it wasn't actually a community effort.
I shall now do the amazing and agree with David Haley. 
I do think it's a terrible waste of that resource. It had a great deal of potential, and it has been squandered.
|
|
|
Rudha
Sorcerer
Group: Members
Posts: 468
Joined: Aug 15, 2010
|
#6 id:51531 Posted Oct 6, 2010, 4:13 am
|
Its still useful in that their wiki at least givesa centralised location to find information on various mud related telopts.
Maya/Rudha
|
|
.........................
Ráðumk þér Loddfáfnir, en þú ráð nemir, njóta mundu ef þú nemr, þér munu góð ef þú getr:
orðum skipta þú skalt aldregi við ósvinna apa -
því at af illum manni mundu aldregi góðs laun um geta, en góðr maðr mun þik gørva mega líknfastan at lofi.
|
|
Scandum
Wizard
Group: Members
Posts: 1,788
Joined: Aug 8, 2006
|
#7 id:51533 Posted Oct 6, 2010, 5:28 am
|
The MCCP article on the Wiki contains an obsolete specification, but Nick Gammon refused to change it to the latest one, and my strong su####ion is that's because the last official MCCP specification is less agreeable with Nick's vision on how MCCP should work.
The whole GMCP discussion turned into the same kind of mess with conflicting viewpoints, and in the end IRE and Zugg withdrew from the discussion and finished it themselves.
The main problem is that pretty much all people are ill equipped to deal well with conflicts where opinions differ, and with the fact that someone has to be in charge and make the final decisions when no one is willing to compromise or work toward consensus.
So my conclusion is identical to Haley's, it's presented as a community effort while it was a loosely coupled group of individuals (IRE + Mudlet, Aardwolf, Zugg, Mushclient) wanting community support with no real say for the community in the matter, nor a clear understanding of their own relative worth, causing the core group itself to disintegrate, which I think was the true end of mudstandards.
|
Last edited Oct 6, 2010, 5:30 am by Scandum
|
|
Mudder
Sorcerer
Group: Members
Posts: 328
Joined: Oct 17, 2009
|
#8 id:51537 Posted Oct 6, 2010, 6:50 am
|
Hm, well that sucks.
I find I would like to eventually implement these protocols but I'm not sure which version is supported by which client. Overall it's just a silly thing to have to deal with.
Perhaps we could create a similar site that keeps up-to-date information on the protocols, which client implements them and up to what version, etc. So admins can have a single location to find accurate data.
I know that if, for example, MUSHclient supports MCCP version 2.0 (I am making up numbers) and cMUD supports all versions up to 4.5, I'd prefer to implement v. 2.0 or maybe detect the client and change the protocol accordingly.
Maybe the site wouldn't have the influence to create a standard that is upheld, but we could certainly do good.
|
......................... A wise man once said:Never underestimate a newbie coder and the sheer amount of spare time they may accumulate.
RaM Fire Development Team. ROM from C to C++
Developing a tinymudserver codebase.
|
|
KaVir
Wizard
Group: Members
Posts: 2,155
Joined: Jun 19, 2006
|
#9 id:51538 Posted Oct 6, 2010, 6:51 am
|
Scandum said:So my conclusion is identical to Haley's, it's presented as a community effort while it was a loosely coupled group of individuals (IRE + Mudlet, Aardwolf, Zugg, Mushclient) wanting community support with no real say for the community in the matter,
For the record, I've also heard complaints about GMCP from Heiko (Mudlet), Lasher (Aardwolf) and Nick Gammon (MUSHclient). While there were plenty of individuals pushing their agendas on MudStandards, or even just arguing for the fun of it, I think the final decision regarding GMCP was only made by the two groups you named earlier.
Mudder said:Perhaps we could create a similar site that keeps up-to-date information on the protocols, which client implements them and up to what version, etc. So admins can have a single location to find accurate data.
Try here: http://www.mudpedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_MUD_clients
Mudder said:I know that if, for example, MUSHclient supports MCCP version 2.0 (I am making up numbers) and cMUD supports all versions up to 4.5, I'd prefer to implement v. 2.0 or maybe detect the client and change the protocol accordingly.
There are only two versions of MCCP, and I'm not aware of any clients that implement the first without also implementing the second - so you only need to support the second. They're separate protocols though, so you could in theory support both (and many muds do exactly that).
MXP is the only protocol I can think of off the top of my head that has multiple versions each offering different functionality. You can query the version and respond accordingly - but most clients that support MXP only seem to support a subset of the options. And the same seems to be true of most muds. In my opinion MXP is only really worth using for the links and perhaps the colours, anyway.
|
......................... KaVir at God Wars II: godwars2.org 3000 Roomless world. Manual combat. Endless possibilities.
Last edited Oct 6, 2010, 7:00 am by KaVir
|
|
Scandum
Wizard
Group: Members
Posts: 1,788
Joined: Aug 8, 2006
|
#10 id:51554 Posted Oct 6, 2010, 6:32 pm
|
Mudder said:
I find I would like to eventually implement these protocols but I'm not sure which version is supported by which client. Overall it's just a silly thing to have to deal with.
All clients support MCCP2 making MCCP1 obsolete. Not all servers support the option for the client to disable MCCP by sending IAC DONT MCCP, though following the last official specification they should.
|
|
|
Rudha
Sorcerer
Group: Members
Posts: 468
Joined: Aug 15, 2010
|
#11 id:51556 Posted Oct 6, 2010, 6:35 pm
|
MCCP1 used malformed strings which were not proper TELOPTs, which is why MCCP2 was devised, as I understand it.
Maya/Rudha
|
|
.........................
Ráðumk þér Loddfáfnir, en þú ráð nemir, njóta mundu ef þú nemr, þér munu góð ef þú getr:
orðum skipta þú skalt aldregi við ósvinna apa -
því at af illum manni mundu aldregi góðs laun um geta, en góðr maðr mun þik gørva mega líknfastan at lofi.
|
|
KaVir
Wizard
Group: Members
Posts: 2,155
Joined: Jun 19, 2006
|
#12 id:51557 Posted Oct 7, 2010, 12:44 am
|
Rudha said:MCCP1 used malformed strings which were not proper TELOPTs, which is why MCCP2 was devised, as I understand it.
In MCCP1, the server would send IAC SB COMPRESS WILL SE to indicate the start of compression - that's obviously not a valid sequence. MCCP2 changed it to IAC SB COMPRESS2 IAC SE, which still violates the telnet subnegotiation mechanism, but isn't quite as broken.
|
......................... KaVir at God Wars II: godwars2.org 3000 Roomless world. Manual combat. Endless possibilities.
|
|
David Haley
Wizard
Group: Members
Posts: 7,809
Joined: Jun 30, 2007
|
#13 id:51565 Posted Oct 7, 2010, 10:20 am
|
KaVir said:MCCP2 changed it to IAC SB COMPRESS2 IAC SE, which still violates the telnet subnegotiation mechanism, but isn't quite as broken.
As long as the will/do negotiation happens first, it's a valid message saying "everything henceforth will be compressed" (unless the argument is that the message requires a dummy parameter). Just because both sides have negotiated it doesn't mean that compression should begin at that instant.
|
|
|
Tyche
Wizard
Group: Members
Posts: 1,713
Joined: May 23, 2006
|
#14 id:51571 Posted Oct 7, 2010, 1:13 pm
|
KaVir said:Rudha said:MCCP1 used malformed strings which were not proper TELOPTs, which is why MCCP2 was devised, as I understand it.
In MCCP1, the server would send IAC SB COMPRESS WILL SE to indicate the start of compression - that's obviously not a valid sequence. MCCP2 changed it to IAC SB COMPRESS2 IAC SE, which still violates the telnet subnegotiation mechanism, but isn't quite as broken.
And the proposed MCCP3 protocol lives within the Telnet subnegotiation mechanism, eliminates ambiguities in the specification, and allows error correction. ;-P
|
......................... Proud member of Team Hetero
  
For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
|
|
|
|
