Difference between revisions of "Talk:Classic Protocol Extension"
(→Old extensions negotiation: new section) |
|||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
Maybe add a list of clients/servers that are compatible with each packet? This shouldn't be to hard to add I would think, I just don't know how it should look. — [[User:Hypereddie10|Hypereddie10]] ([[User talk:Hypereddie10|talk]]) 17:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC) | Maybe add a list of clients/servers that are compatible with each packet? This shouldn't be to hard to add I would think, I just don't know how it should look. — [[User:Hypereddie10|Hypereddie10]] ([[User talk:Hypereddie10|talk]]) 17:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC) | ||
:Added a table: [[Classic Protocol Extension/Support]]. — [[User:F|F]] ([[User talk:F|talk]]) 07:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC) | :Added a table: [[Classic Protocol Extension/Support]]. — [[User:F|F]] ([[User talk:F|talk]]) 07:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Old extensions negotiation == | ||
| + | |||
| + | During negotiation, should client/server report all versions of extensions separately, or just report the latest version supported? In the latter case, should it be assumed that a client/server supporting some version of an extension, also supports all the previous versions of that extension? Stuff like this should be documented. | ||
| + | |||
| + | I tried to look at how ClassicalSharp implements this, but it blindly reports the same version as server for BlockDefinitionsExt and EnvMapAppearance, so... it's probably not correct. --[[User:Egor|Egor]] ([[User talk:Egor|talk]]) 14:08, 30 November 2017 (UTC) | ||
Latest revision as of 14:08, 30 November 2017
Compatibly list for each packet?
Maybe add a list of clients/servers that are compatible with each packet? This shouldn't be to hard to add I would think, I just don't know how it should look. — Hypereddie10 (talk) 17:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
- Added a table: Classic Protocol Extension/Support. — F (talk) 07:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Old extensions negotiation
During negotiation, should client/server report all versions of extensions separately, or just report the latest version supported? In the latter case, should it be assumed that a client/server supporting some version of an extension, also supports all the previous versions of that extension? Stuff like this should be documented.
I tried to look at how ClassicalSharp implements this, but it blindly reports the same version as server for BlockDefinitionsExt and EnvMapAppearance, so... it's probably not correct. --Egor (talk) 14:08, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
