[DGD] networking/beginner comments

[Noah Gibbs]

  Felix is against the driver being able to initiate outgoing connections, for security reasons.  "Networking support" is a bit of an exaggeration of what he opposes :-)

  LPCSSH gives SSH support, which is nice.  There's already perfectly good binary port support in general -- Phantasmal even uses that for telnet, and just uses DGD telnet support for a backup "in case of emergency" admin port.

  As long as you don't need outgoing network connections, or a protocol that requires them (InterMUD3, active-mode FTP), vanilla DGD is fine.  It's outgoing connections that would require an external daemon.

--- On Fri, 7/24/09, Shentino <shentino at gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Shentino <shentino at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [DGD] networking/beginner comments
> To: "All about Dworkin's Game Driver" <dgd at dworkin.nl>
> Date: Friday, July 24, 2009, 7:15 PM
> I haven't figured out how to do so
> yet, but apparently using the LPCSSH
> package can provide ALMOST foolproof networking
> functionality with vanilla
> DGD.
> 
> For me, the tricky part is having the external daemon
> properly authenticate
> itself to the LPC layer.
> 
> A daemon though would be the ultimate in forward
> compatibility.  Felix
> remains opposed to any official networking support in the
> driver itself.
> From what I gather, the subject has been the source of many
> debates and
> flame wars, so I'd consider it verboten territory to
> venture into detail
> about.
> 
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 5:06 PM, <bart at wotf.org>
> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 13:35:56 -0700 (PDT), Noah Gibbs
> wrote
> > > Yes, that could be done.  There was talk
> (but no action) awhile
> > > back about the idea of having an external server
> that allowed
> > > outgoing network connections with vanilla DGD,
> for instance.  But I
> > > think the consensus was that you're better off
> just using DGD
> > > patched with the network package.
> >
> > My obviously biased opinion is that it is the fastest
> way.. but rather
> > incompatible with dgdmp :)
> >
> >
> > >
> > >   If you *do* use the network
> package, you could get the protocol
> > > you describe entirely at the LPC level rather
> than needing an
> > > external server.  So then the question is
> what does the protocol do
> > > and how does it look?  Having an inter-DGD
> protocol is reasonable,
> > > but you'd have to figure out some use for it
> before people are
> > > likely to spend time building it :-)
> >
> > It quite depends on what you want indeed.
> >
> > I use a protocol based on what is in use on the
> intermud 3 network to
> > synchronize things like mail between copies of my mud,
> and it is very easy
> > to
> > extend that to other things that involve the exchange
> of lpc data between
> > different instances of dgd. Doing something useful
> with that is an entirely
> > different matter.
> >
> > Bart.
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > --- On Fri, 7/24/09, Blake Arnold <BArnold at cartonservice.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > From: Blake Arnold <BArnold at cartonservice.com>
> > > > Subject: [DGD] networking/beginner comments
> > > > To: "'dgd at dworkin.nl'"
> <dgd at dworkin.nl>
> > > > Date: Friday, July 24, 2009, 11:59 AM
> > > > Hello, since this is my first post
> > > > here I would like to say HI! So now that
> that is over please
> > > > excuse my stupidity on some topics, I am
> still a beginner on
> > > > a lot of them.
> > > >
> > > > From what I have read so far on attempts to
> extend the DGD
> > > > driver's networking functionality the
> approach is always to
> > > > edit the DGD code to include this
> functionality. It may be
> > > > the fastest route to accomplish the same end
> result however
> > > > I fail to see the need to take this
> route.  Has anyone
> > > > ever attempted to use the existing DGD
> functionality to
> > > > build a communication layer above the DGD
> driver that is
> > > > capable of communication between multiple
> DGD processes'?
> > > > Essentially creating a non-verbose
> (high-level)
> > > > communications language. To top it off the
> communication
> > > > would be Object Oriented would it not?(if
> done properly),
> > > > Does that mean that our created
> communication layer is also
> > > > independent from the underlying layers (in
> the idea that as
> > > > long as the 'communication' that is received
> is the same
> > > > that was sent, it's irrelevant how it got
> from one point to
> > > > the other).
> > > >
> > > > And that will finish off my rambling. I'm
> interested to see
> > > > what other opinions are on the topic. Anyway
> I see the DGD
> > > > driver and the kernel lib as a very nice
> piece of work my
> > > > kudo's go to the creators.
> > > >
> > > > BA
> > > > ___________________________________________
> > > > https://mail.dworkin.nl/mailman/listinfo/dgd
> > > >
> > >
> > > ___________________________________________
> > > https://mail.dworkin.nl/mailman/listinfo/dgd
> >
> >
> > --
> > Created with Open WebMail at http://www.bartsplace.net/
> > Read my weblog at http://soapbox.bartsplace.net/
> >
> > ___________________________________________
> > https://mail.dworkin.nl/mailman/listinfo/dgd
> >
> ___________________________________________
> https://mail.dworkin.nl/mailman/listinfo/dgd
>