JBLS_0015

[Hdx]

Code Select Expand

        for (int h = 0; h < Constants.numOfNews; h++){
        OutPacketBuffer p15 = new OutPacketBuffer(0x15);
        p15.addNTString(Constants.strNews[h]);
        out.write(p15.getBuffer());
        p15 = null;
        Out.info("Thread " + threadID, "Sent 0x15.");
    }

I was varry lazy, shitty aint it? Like I said added it to notify people of upcoming changes/downtime.
~-~(HDX)~-~

[UserLoser.]

Eww @ replacing an existing BNLS message with some news thing in emu server

[Hdx]

I replaced nothing, atleast noting that I know of, 0x15 was an open packet ID. And I don't think there has been news added to official BNLS servers yet...

If some people would allow me fuller access ot doccumentaytion, I would know if I had screwed with something, and then fixed it. *yes this is a hint for people to give me more access , I only wish to understand things more compleetly.*
~-~(HDX)~-~

[Warrior]

I was using it in the context of bot development :p

[Kp]

Eww @ replacing an existing BNLS message with some news thing in emu server

I think it's a great idea.  It forces people to choose between supporting BNLS or some crappy emulation.   Any client which supports Hdx's news message will get horribly confused when it encounters an official form BNLS_15.

Of course, I'm the one that advocated having flag 1 on BNLS_HASHDATA request that the server return a randomized result.  The flag is presently undefined because some very old versions of CSB randomly set/clear that flag, so assigning meaning to it would cause them to behave strangely.

[Zakath]

Of course, I'm the one that advocated having flag 1 on BNLS_HASHDATA request that the server return a randomized result.  The flag is presently undefined because some very old versions of CSB randomly set/clear that flag, so assigning meaning to it would cause them to behave strangely.

Haha...now there's a fun idea.

[Hdx]

Fine I'll not replace anything, I'm assuming that there are not 256 packet id's in BNLS, therefor my new ID will be 0xFF and any extra things I add will work down form there. Now like I said if people would actually give me more information on what I am doing then I would make it compliant with everyhting that is already implamented. And it's not a crappy emulation it is actually a good emulation, Some people could argue that BNLS itself is a crapy emulation of Blizzard's hashing algos.

Anyway use of JBLS is OPTIONAL. If you don't like it don't use it and don't complain about it.
JBLS was made for the times that BNLS isn't accessible, not up-to-date (I added a easy to use config to JBLS and easy updating). It takes me 3 seconds to update my JBLS server(after I notice ther eis an update) mainly cuz I type slow.  It was also made because VL has the only copies of BNLS that I know of. And users of BNLS might want to run there own server, not wanting to send plain text over the net, Wanted it to run old hashes (why I dont know) or just wanted to have there own, whatever the reason noone cares. Why do people use TestBNCS or PvP?

~-~(HDX)~-~

[UserLoser.]

Fine I'll not replace anything, I'm assuming that there are not 256 packet id's in BNLS, therefor my new ID will be 0xFF and any extra things I add will work down form there. Now like I said if people would actually give me more information on what I am doing then I would make it compliant with everyhting that is already implamented. And it's not a crappy emulation it is actually a good emulation, Some people could argue that BNLS itself is a crapy emulation of Blizzard's hashing algos.

Anyway use of JBLS is OPTIONAL. If you don't like it don't use it and don't complain about it.
JBLS was made for the times that BNLS isn't accessible, not up-to-date (I added a easy to use config to JBLS and easy updating). It takes me 3 seconds to update my JBLS server(after I notice ther eis an update) mainly cuz I type slow.  It was also made because VL has the only copies of BNLS that I know of. And users of BNLS might want to run there own server, not wanting to send plain text over the net, Wanted it to run old hashes (why I dont know) or just wanted to have there own, whatever the reason noone cares. Why do people use TestBNCS or PvP?

~-~(HDX)~-~

I thought it was already been proven that BNLS is more efficent then Blizzard's implementations?

Not wanting to send plain text over net?  Do you encrypt your bills in the mail when you send them?  You know, someone could easily get into your mailbox, or someone at post office can just take your bill/money/whatever and have fun with it.  I find it quite odd that some of us here are more worried about passwords and cdkeys for computer games than they would be about their real life mail, for example. (no, not email, mail as in a mailbox outside your house where the mailman (uh oh, security issue) comes and takes it).  But whatever, you make your own choices

[Hdx]

UL I honestly agree that sending plain text information over the internet (to servers such as BNLS, BNCS, etc..) is no big deal, but a lot of people freak out "OMG OMG OMG OMG MY PASSWORD MY CDKEYS NOOOOOOOSSSS!!!!1!!!11!!!1!!!!ONE"

THe main reason I use JBLS is just because it's faster (for me) to work locally then over the net. Also the fact that I have the source, and can edit thigns that I find don't sute my needs. And I can update it a lot faster.
~-~(HDX)~-~

[Kp]

Fine I'll not replace anything, I'm assuming that there are not 256 packet id's in BNLS, therefor my new ID will be 0xFF and any extra things I add will work down form there. Now like I said if people would actually give me more information on what I am doing then I would make it compliant with everyhting that is already implamented. And it's not a crappy emulation it is actually a good emulation, Some people could argue that BNLS itself is a crapy emulation of Blizzard's hashing algos.

You seem a bit angry.  Anyway, I suppose I should've mentioned that we were considering using the upper half of the range for optional extension/negotiation messages, and the lower half for service messages.  It'd really be a much better idea if you wouldn't go extending the protocol without announcing it before you settle on an ID#.  You're making a real mess of things, with two different ID#s assigned to news already.  We can't give you more information on what you're doing, because - well, because you're the one doing it, not us.  Also, I don't see why we should need to announce every possible extension to people who're just making crappy knockoffs.

Anyway use of JBLS is OPTIONAL. If you don't like it don't use it and don't complain about it.
JBLS was made for the times that BNLS isn't accessible, not up-to-date (I added a easy to use config to JBLS and easy updating). It takes me 3 seconds to update my JBLS server(after I notice ther eis an update) mainly cuz I type slow.  It was also made because VL has the only copies of BNLS that I know of. And users of BNLS might want to run there own server, not wanting to send plain text over the net, Wanted it to run old hashes (why I dont know) or just wanted to have there own, whatever the reason noone cares. Why do people use TestBNCS or PvP?

Quite a lot to address there.  I won't try to speak to the motives of why people use Arta's server, but PvP is quite a bit more interesting than facing computer controlled enemies.  This whole mess got started because you were polluting the BNLS ID# namespace with non-standard messages, so once we activate any conflicting ID#s, any client which handles those is required to use JBLS instead of the real deal (or is re-coded to use BNLS's interpretation, in which case JBLS usage is prohibited).  It's really a no-win deal when you go hacking in extensions like that.

I thought it was already been proven that BNLS is more efficent then Blizzard's implementations?

I don't recall if we have performance comparisons between Blizzard's internal (server-side) implementation and the one on BNLS, but I'd be quite surprised if BNLS didn't at least break even.   IIRC, BNLS also meets or exceeds the performance of the client-side algorithms.

[Hdx]

You seem a bit angry.  Anyway, I suppose I should've mentioned that we were considering using the upper half of the range for optional extension/negotiation messages, and the lower half for service messages.  It'd really be a much better idea if you wouldn't go extending the protocol without announcing it before you settle on an ID#.  You're making a real mess of things, with two different ID#s assigned to news already.  We can't give you more information on what you're doing, because - well, because you're the one doing it, not us.  Also, I don't see why we should need to announce every possible extension to people who're just making crappy knockoffs.

I was angry, I'm sick of people calling things they didn't make cheap, and/or knock offs. As for your considerations, It would be nice if you allowed people who are interested, and would understand then to hear them. As for announcing it before I settle on an ID#, I agree I was wrong for not knowing more about the server, But I do not blame it all on myself, I place some of it on the fact that there are unknown things going on where there are people trying to improve upon your product.
As for the information on what I'm doing, I worded it wrong, I meant more information that would allow me to be compatible with you, and still allow me to expand upon things. (even now it's worded freaky 0.o). Ad for the announcing the possible extent ions, I think you should, but not EVERY POSSIBLE one, just the ones that you are currently considering.

Quite a lot to address there.  I won't try to speak to the motives of why people use Arta's server, but PvP is quite a bit more interesting than facing computer controlled enemies.  This whole mess got started because you were polluting the BNLS ID# namespace with non-standard messages, so once we activate any conflicting ID#s, any client which handles those is required to use JBLS instead of the real deal (or is re-coded to use BNLS's interpretation, in which case JBLS usage is prohibited).  It's really a no-win deal when you go hacking in extensions like that.

Meh PvP server is an extent ion of BNet to allow for more of the end-users needs to be fulfilled. Thats what JBLS is, an extent ion of BNLS witch allows then end-user to put what he/she wants into it. And to expand upon it. As for my method of making this packet w/o knowing all the information look above.

What I think NEEDS to be done is this: the programmers involved in the BNLS project MUST stop thinking of the programmers involved in the JBLS project is Low life scum who made a "cheap knock off" of there product. You need to start thinking of use as fellow programmers who wish to make the most out of BOTH of our products. Also instead of releasing everything to the PUBLIC, maybe just add the people for the JBLS team into your decisions pertain to BNLS. Even if you don't give them permission to give input, it would be better if they knew what was going on instead of simply going on speculations.  (Like this one witch turned out to be nothing but hell -.-)

Also maybe you should add such a message as this (the BNLS_SERVERMESSAGE) and we ALL can decide on an appropriate ID# for it. So that JBLS and BNLS both grow together therefor making no bot out there require either.

So to re-cap, I STRONGLY believe that you should consider the JBLS team as equals. not as people who make knock offs, but people who make extent ions. And we should work together to make the experience better for everyone.

~-~(HDX)~-~

[UserLoser.]

So why not make your own server with own protocol instead of copying BNLS and adding onto it?

[Hdx]

So why not make your own server with own protocol instead of copying BNLS and adding onto it?

Why? For the same reason people don't make there own chat servers, and just use BNCS. It's more commonly used. And If we made a new protocall, we wouldn't have it used untill it became famous, and even then *most* bot programmers will be lazy and not want to add our new protocal. Or just not have the know-how to add it. (taking into account all the CSB programmers who don't know the 1st things about b.net)
~-~(HDX)~-~

[The-FooL]

Hdx: as much as you may like JBLS and working on it, it was only created by me as a workaround before BNCSUtil came out.  The source is open, but I don't claim it to be anything it's not. 

[Newby]

I find it quite odd that some of us here are more worried about passwords and cdkeys for computer games than they would be about their real life mail, for example. (no, not email, mail as in a mailbox outside your house where the mailman (uh oh, security issue) comes and takes it).  But whatever, you make your own choices

The instant you stick something in an envelope, seal it, and put a stamp on it, if it gets tampered with (according to my dad, who does work for the government) the government will help you find justice. Or something like that.