|
|
| Author |
Message |
olene
Newbie
Joined: 31 Jul 2004
Posts: 61
Location: olene on DALnet
|
 Posted: May 12, 2005 1:09am Post subject: User AWAY propigation |
 |
|
Lemme know how you feel about sending
:nick!user@host AWAY :away message
and
:nick!user@host AWAY
to users when a user on a common channel goes or comes from being away. This would eliminate your common "/me is away (auto-away) (OMG MY PAGER IS ON /CTCP PAGE TO PAGE ROFLFLE!!11)". |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
PingBad
Guru
Joined: 05 Feb 2005
Posts: 2010
Location: New Zealand
|
| Posted: May 12, 2005 4:02am Post subject: |
|
|
| its a good idea, yes, but (afaik) no IRC clients support the receiving of AWAY messages, just the raws involved in setting and unseeting such a status |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jason
SearchIRC Developer
Joined: 03 May 2003
Posts: 1161
Location: Tampa, FL
|
| Posted: May 12, 2005 5:53am Post subject: |
|
|
The problem with such a concept is that it only adds more bloat to an already broken system. Well, IRC isn't really broken, but the protocol doesn't scale enough that a network of millions could exist. My point is only that such an addition would add more bandwidth usage and doesn't resolve any underlying issues.
Every little character sent is bandwidth used. That's why Undernet's P10 changes all the commands at the server level from things like PRIVMSG, JOIN, QUIT, to single token characters. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: May 12, 2005 10:21am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jason wrote: | | Every little character sent is bandwidth used. That's why Undernet's P10 changes all the commands at the server level from things like PRIVMSG, JOIN, QUIT, to single token characters. |
Utility should come above bandwidth savings. You're right, most protocols use tokens for server<->server commands. But that's server<->server, something the ircd programmers have control over. server<->client protocol is something different. If bandwidth is our primary concern, then away should be eliminated entirely. I like the idea, but the implementation is SEVERELY flawed. You can't just start sending unknown commands to clients! That's how you break things. If this is how you intend to start making your ircd, expect it to fail because client coders will completely ignore you. I spent months convincing as many irc clients as I could to add PREFIX support before I went and added the +qa prefixes to Unreal. Why? It would break clients if I hadn't and that's not something that pleases the client coders. Your implementation is flawed. When you are adding new features to IRC, you should do whatever you can to ensure backwards compatibility. I designed a similar feature (it needs revision) quite a while ago and it would ensure compatibility. That's much better than just saying screw everyone who doesn't want to support this because I can tell you, seeing as how your ircd right now probably has 1 user (you) I doubt irc client coders are going to bendover backwards to add support for your new ideas. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
braindigitalis
Idler
Joined: 22 Sep 2003
Posts: 443
Location: IRC
|
| Posted: May 12, 2005 11:01am Post subject: Re: User AWAY propigation |
|
|
| olene wrote: | Lemme know how you feel about sending
:nick!user@host AWAY :away message
and
:nick!user@host AWAY
to users when a user on a common channel goes or comes from being away. This would eliminate your common "/me is away (auto-away) (OMG MY PAGER IS ON /CTCP PAGE TO PAGE ROFLFLE!!11)". |
if you try and do this as-is, most clients will either output junk in status, or, they'll think you just set yourself away. It needs supporting clientside to be useful. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
olene
Newbie
Joined: 31 Jul 2004
Posts: 61
Location: olene on DALnet
|
| Posted: May 12, 2005 4:14pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I implemented it as an option. Setting usermode +a will allow you to see instantaneous AWAY messages. At least then you'd be able to script a proper output if you'd like. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
w00t
Eleet
Joined: 09 Jun 2004
Posts: 699
Location: Nowra, Australia
|
| Posted: May 12, 2005 5:46pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Why not send the AWAY numeric instead? You know, that irritating one that keeps getting shouted at you when you try and interact socially with a person who's away? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
olene
Newbie
Joined: 31 Jul 2004
Posts: 61
Location: olene on DALnet
|
| Posted: May 12, 2005 7:58pm Post subject: |
|
|
Because numerics are for replies to commands.. for example
PRIVMSG away_user :hi
:server 301 you away_user :away message
or
INVITE away_user #really-cool-channel
:server 301 you away_user :away message
If you're not executing a command, you shouldn't get unsolicited numerics (with WATCH being the only example (which i still disagree with, but its become too standard to change)).
Therefore, you get 301 (RPL_AWAY) if you do something to an away user, and you get AWAY if the user is just going away.
Edit:
A perfect example of this is TOPIC. When someone sets the topic, you get a TOPIC message. But if you originate a command that sends you the topic thats already set, you get 332 (RPL_TOPIC) (and usually 333 (RPL_TOPICWHOTIME)). It would be stupid to send the "Topic currently is" numeric when someone changes the topic. Likewise it's stupid to send the well-known "is currently away" numeric when you're not even doing anything. Not to mention that most clients will handle that numeric in a way that would probably send it to the active window so you can actually see it. AWAY is a message that most clients aren't aware of, so even if you do set yourself +a, it will wind up in your status or server window, or ignored altogether. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Register
Log in
