JBLS_0015

[Hdx]

Bah fine, I'll still work on it, if people use my server, then they know it's a JBLS server, and so I can do w/e the heck I want to it, even to expand on it. People who use it be warned that It may cause errors because of no-compliance with BNLS's standards.

So if you use it just for the standard hashing you'll be fine. Otherwise you'll have to determin if it's my server, I'm going to do this by sending 0xFE on connect.

Packet ID: 0xFE
Packet Name: Hdx_ServerVer
Contents:
    DWORD: Current Server version.
    BOOL: Requires account authorization.

Remarks: This is simply to notify the user that they are using a non-standard BNLS server. Also Local hashing is still advised over either server. Also I don't mean to come off 'cocky' as Ian so bluntly put it -.-
~-~(HDX)~-~

[tA-Kane]

While you're into adding packets that could be used to specify what the server supports, you could add another part to that packet that specifies whether the server requires authorization from the client before allowing it access to use specific packets.

[Hdx]

Thats a good Idea, But considering my server is open, it will always be 0. It will be in 0xFE along wiht the server ver.
~-~(HDX)~-~

[Joe[x86]]

Wow, Hdx has stolen 3 packetID's from a useful cause and still acomplished nothing! We can tell if its you're server just by looking at the DNS. Duh.

EDIT: Lawl @ me thinking this was really BNLS>

[Hdx]

2 packet id's not three.
I'll still comply with any new expanshions of BNLS that they make public, but sence there not making any public, i'm in the free. + it's my server :/ and if people dont liek ti use normal BNLS, witch is recommended anyways.
~-~(HDX)~-~

[Joe[x86]]

Hdx, how about seeing as how you have the ONE 24/7 BNLS server, you keep it working? Kthx.

[Hdx]

The ONE JBLS** server I ahve is always running, I never use it for screwing with. I always test on a 2nd server (port 9366). Thats only up when Im testing things, And then I don't upgrade the 24/7 one untill I'm sure it's working. And no buggs mess it up.
~-~(HDX)~-~

[Arta]

I think all of you are wrong.

To HDX/JBLS:

Adding messages to a protocol in such an ad-hoc way is not wise. Kp is right: it will make things worse in the longrun. If you want to add messages, you should speak to the BNLS team and come to an agreement on a standard. These things must be agreed upon in advance, or the protocol ends up being messy and horrible. It is also bad to require people to identify a server implementation and write special code to make use of its non-standard features. Protocols must be standardised for the good of everyone.

To Kp/BNLS:

The fact that people are making their own versions of BNLS is good, and is a compliment. BNLS has had reliability issues, and JBLS thus has a valid role as a backup/local server. The fact that the protocol now has more than one implementor is positive and healthy and should lead to new ideas and innovations. This is not something anyone should be against.


A message to identify the specific server implementation shouldn't really be necessary, but it might be nice. A news message sounds like a very good idea. It might even be nice to have some way for BNLS servers to request news from each other.

I think you guys should cooperate instead of sniping at each other.

[Joe[x86]]

I think you guys should cooperate instead of sniping at each other.

Amen, brotha!

[R.a.B.B.i.T]

Inter-server chat?  What?  It might be a good idea for JBLS to start implementing a system where it forwards a connection to a different JB/BNLS server if its load is maxed.