[ENet-discuss] ENet 2.0 most wanted features?

[Director De Juego]

>>that are none-the-less realistic and not overly complicated?
>>I don't know if this would be a good idea, but

 ---I always prefer to hear the perspective of the end user over the
perspective of a programmer. End users tend to think with their imagination
while programmers tend to think it terms of limitations. A generalization
to be sure, but that's been my experience.---

So, humbly, I think than open a *brainstorming process* for catching
features is a good idea. For brainstorming is interesting do not impose
initial conditions or restrictions to contributions.

P.S: Sorry for my English :-(

DJuego



On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Director De Juego <djuego at gmail.com> wrote:

> Uah!. I am interested Benoit!! I am very newbie with ENet, but I am sure i
> will need streaming sooner or later. Your streaming facility could teach us
> about the topic...
>
> P.S. Including in the official distro seems a good idea to me.
>
> DJuego
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Benoit Germain <bnt.germain at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> I have used for a little while a streaming facility that can transfer
>> large amount of stuff. It is based on the latest ENet version and doesn't
>> break protocol; it's more like a high level service. I can share if you are
>> interested (and maybe this could be included in the official distro :-)
>>
>>
>> 2013/4/30 Nuno Silva <little.coding.fox at gmail.com>
>>
>>> It would be interesting if there was a standard way to transfer large
>>> amounts of data over ENet. Some of us might need to e.g., do video
>>> streaming, but the way to transfer the data might not be ideal or the best
>>> unless we're quite good at networking already (which I am not). I don't
>>> know if this would be a good idea, but I just wanted you to at least
>>> consider it.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Lee Salzman <lsalzman at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> So, I'm just thinking in the back of my mind what sort of things would
>>>> be desired in a hypothetical version 2.0 of ENet that broke API
>>>> compatibility and so could do things that would otherwise not be possible
>>>> in a 1.x release.
>>>>
>>>> That doesn't mean that a 2.0 is in the near future, but I'd like to get
>>>> a dialogue going about it.
>>>>
>>>> Aside from IPv6 support, are there any other big things people would
>>>> want that are none-the-less realistic and not overly complicated?
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> ENet-discuss mailing list
>>>> ENet-discuss at cubik.org
>>>> http://lists.cubik.org/mailman/listinfo/enet-discuss
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> ENet-discuss mailing list
>>> ENet-discuss at cubik.org
>>> http://lists.cubik.org/mailman/listinfo/enet-discuss
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Benoit.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> ENet-discuss mailing list
>> ENet-discuss at cubik.org
>> http://lists.cubik.org/mailman/listinfo/enet-discuss
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cubik.org/pipermail/enet-discuss/attachments/20130430/90cd8641/attachment.html>