Difference between revisions of "Talk:Classic Protocol Extension"

From wiki.vg
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
 
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
== Compatibly list for each packet? ==
 
== 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.
+
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)