09 Oct, 2010, KaVir wrote in the 1st comment:
Votes: 0
One of my players has created an MSDP package for CMUD.

I've posted it (with his permission) here: http://clanscw.brinkster.net/godwars/top...

I believe CMUD users can grab it directly from a package repository.

I don't use CMUD myself, but a few of my players do, so it's good to know for sure that it supports MSDP.
11 Oct, 2010, Scandum wrote in the 2nd comment:
Votes: 0
As far as I can tell it only stores the variables and doesn't handle nesting. The interface aspect remains somewhat of a mystery as well.

It's a start though.
09 Sep, 2011, Splork wrote in the 3rd comment:
Votes: 0
This script appears to crash Cmud session. Is there an updated on available for zmud/cmud?

Splork
09 Sep, 2011, KaVir wrote in the 4th comment:
Votes: 0
Not that I'm aware of. Zugg has said he has no interest in supporting MSDP, and I don't own/use either CMUD or zMUD, so this is purely an unofficial thing.

Personally I'm more interested in MUSHclient and Mudlet - both are free, with decent support for custom GUIs. I don't know how customisable CMUDs interface is, but even if you can create a front-end similar to the sort of thing I've created for MUSHclient and Mudlet, the $30 price tag is going to make it a hard sell for newbies. And because you can't offer your own distribution, they'll have to configure it themselves…and the first thing they'll see will be adverts for other muds. Not really the best way to promote your mud, IMO.

But still, you may have established players who already use CMUD, and don't want to switch client. If that's the case, perhaps some of them could help out?

You could also try using ATCP instead, as I believe CMUD already has some specific support for it.
10 Sep, 2011, Scandum wrote in the 5th comment:
Votes: 0
It might be worth a try letting Zugg know there are 20 MSDP supporting MUDs, and if the current trend continues there'll be 30 by the end of the year.

He may also be interested in parsing MSSP to automatically create an auto-connect icon, currently there are about 100 MUDs supporting MSSP.

In order to get MSDP working in CMUD you need to send IAC DO MSDP (255 253 69), I'm sure there are some examples out there on how to do that. Next you need to create a telnet trigger:

#trig {%1} {<code to parse MSDP data stored in %1>} "" {telnet|param=69}

This trigger should work for any IAC SB MSDP message. I'm not familiar enough with CMUD to write the code, I guess some skilled CMUD user will step up eventually. ATCP is handled in the same manner in CMUD, so you don't accomplish a whole lot by switching to ATCP. Writing a parser isn't all that difficult, though most people seem to have difficulty with the nesting logic and saving MSDP tables to the local (if any) table format. It's one of those things that are extremely easy if done right, and a major headache if you half-ass it.
10 Sep, 2011, KaVir wrote in the 6th comment:
Votes: 0
Scandum said:
It might be worth a try letting Zugg know there are 20 MSDP supporting MUDs, and if the current trend continues there'll be 30 by the end of the year.

You're missing three from your list:

Godwars: War of Legend: godwars.net 7777
The Shadow's Embrace: theshadowsembrace.com 4000
ConQUEST: conquest.sdmud.com 5000

And of course there's also SlothMUD (thus Splork's post), but it's not on their live port yet.

I don't think Zugg really cares, but you could try talking to him if you like. It won't effect me either way - I don't use CMUD, and have no intention of buying a copy just to create a GUI for the handful of players who do, particularly when there are free clients that can do exactly what I want, and are already far more popular with my players.

Scandum said:
He may also be interested in parsing MSSP to automatically create an auto-connect icon, currently there are about 100 MUDs supporting MSSP.

I highly doubt it - muds bid thousands of dollars to get their icon on CMUD for a year.
10 Sep, 2011, Tijer wrote in the 7th comment:
Votes: 0
Scandum when is the crawler going to update? hasnt updated since June.. and its now September….
10 Sep, 2011, Scandum wrote in the 8th comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
You're missing three from your list:

Godwars: War of Legend: godwars.net 7777
The Shadow's Embrace: theshadowsembrace.com 4000
ConQUEST: conquest.sdmud.com 5000

I'll add those, none of them is listed on TMC which is why my global crawler isn't finding them. SlothMUD should show up once they go live.

KaVir said:
I don't think Zugg really cares, but you could try talking to him if you like. It won't effect me either way - I don't use CMUD, and have no intention of buying a copy just to create a GUI for the handful of players who do, particularly when there are free clients that can do exactly what I want, and are already far more popular with my players.

I don't care enough either to contact Zugg.

KaVir said:
Scandum said:
He may also be interested in parsing MSSP to automatically create an auto-connect icon, currently there are about 100 MUDs supporting MSSP.

I highly doubt it - muds bid thousands of dollars to get their icon on CMUD for a year.

You'd think the end user to be more important than the sponsor, though money certainly buys loyalty.

Tijer said:
Scandum when is the crawler going to update? hasnt updated since June.. and its now September….

I've been meaning to rewrite it so that it crawls the TMC database and requires less maintenance, thanks for the reminder.
11 Sep, 2011, Rarva.Riendf wrote in the 9th comment:
Votes: 0
Scandum said:
You'd think the end user to be more important than the sponsor, though money certainly buys loyalty.

Problem is there never has been a stable zmud/cmud. Adding anything else to his card castle is probably not a good idea anyway.
11 Sep, 2011, Splork wrote in the 10th comment:
Votes: 0
One of my CMUD users has a pretty workable plugin going. The only thing he can not figure out yet is parsing the tables, for something such as effects. We will post it when its complete and hopefully others can use it.

We are not a fan of zmud/cmud either, however we would like most of the clients which play our game to have the opportunity to get quick use out of MSDP. So we are trying to prepare base snippets/plugins for most of them before we go live.

Splork
12 Sep, 2011, Scandum wrote in the 11th comment:
Votes: 0
Splork said:
The only thing he can not figure out yet is parsing the tables, for something such as effects. We will post it when its complete and hopefully others can use it.

The easiest solution is probably to translate the MSDP table string to a Lua table string, and run it through the Lua parser.
12 Sep, 2011, David Haley wrote in the 12th comment:
Votes: 0
This is why standardized formats exist…
12 Sep, 2011, Scandum wrote in the 13th comment:
Votes: 0
Standardized formats.. like MSDP?

It's unfortunate most people can't write the 50 odd lines of code to deconstruct an MSDP table and reconstruct it in the local structured data format. People can get by with a custom hack job however until the situation resolves itself.
12 Sep, 2011, Rarva.Riendf wrote in the 14th comment:
Votes: 0
Scandum said:
Standardized formats.. like MSDP?
It's unfortunate most people can't write the 50 odd lines of code to deconstruct an MSDP table and reconstruct it in the local structured data format. People can get by with a custom hack job however until the situation resolves itself.

Well for that it would need to read and understand the format itself. That takes time.
In an age where libraries exist for nearly any kinf of format, provided by the originator of the format, who is surprised.
Provide one,it will be used, dont, well it could take time before anyone else do it.
12 Sep, 2011, David Haley wrote in the 15th comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
Standardized formats.. like MSDP?

You made a new standard unheard of at that point in time, choosing to forgo other standards… and now you suggest yourself to translate your format into another format for parsing!!
13 Sep, 2011, Scandum wrote in the 16th comment:
Votes: 0
Rarva.Riendf said:
In an age where libraries exist for nearly any kinf of format, provided by the originator of the format, who is surprised.

If you look at JSON you'll see that pretty much all the JSON parsers are third party, so no. Anyone is free to look at tt++'s sourcecode for inspiration, and there are two server side snippets available.

David Haley said:
Quote
Standardized formats.. like MSDP?

You made a new standard unheard of at that point in time, choosing to forgo other standards… and now you suggest yourself to translate your format into another format for parsing!!

It's no different in the case of JSON, except that JSON is more difficult to parse. You can directly map the data instead of translating it to something the local environment understands, whatever floats your boat.
13 Sep, 2011, Runter wrote in the 17th comment:
Votes: 0
Tripe.
13 Sep, 2011, David Haley wrote in the 18th comment:
Votes: 0
It's no different in the case of JSON, except that there are oodles of JSON parsers out there.

Your answer makes no sense. :sad:
13 Sep, 2011, quixadhal wrote in the 19th comment:
Votes: 0
Scandum said:
It's no different in the case of JSON, except that JSON is more difficult to parse.


*choke* *sprays beverage all over monitor*

So, a simple text format which uses a fully documented and standard set of delimiters and types is HARDER to parse than an obscure 8-bit binary format that requires the user to deal with TELNET opcodes and potentially embedded NUL bytes, which we know C just *loves* to have in strings?

Can I have some of the crack you're smoking? Please??? It must be pretty good stuff man.
13 Sep, 2011, KaVir wrote in the 20th comment:
Votes: 0
quixadhal said:
So, a simple text format which uses a fully documented and standard set of delimiters and types is HARDER to parse than an obscure 8-bit binary format that requires the user to deal with TELNET opcodes and potentially embedded NUL bytes, which we know C just *loves* to have in strings?

I'm not particularly happy with the data format either. However if the client supports MSDP (even indirectly, like MUSHclient) then the user shouldn't need to deal with opcodes. MSDP also forbids the use of NUL bytes, so (unlike ZMP) you don't have to worry about them.
0.0/29