Re: L2J Changes
Posted: Fri May 02, 2014 2:13 pm
Yeah, another problem with this team is the lack of a healthy sense of humor.
+1 for this..Konstantinos wrote:Good news! We need need something new after all these days.
for me we have to fix 1st all the bugs and after that we can check missing features because most of them they are shared.
I also do not understand why the continued perpetuation of the curly braces example I gave. It was just a small example of the way good implementations were (are..?) refused just because, sometimes, they just didn't pass the L2J code cosmetic standards check. But what makes real forks happen, isn't just this. It's because the only "open" thing about L2J development are the sources, which are published. There are no "openings" of any other kind in it. In order to get commits accepted you have to code like you were their disciple, following their sometimes outright broken standards, and code like you religiously learned to code from them. And even that changes, according to the whims of the current L2J leader board at any given time. The formating is just an example, which I see people are starting to blow out of the proportion I intended.xban1x wrote:[...]As it goes for code standards etc. that go that much up some people noses i'll just talk about the one that is discussed about the most. The case braces. Sadly as Zoey said few times we cannot include it in L2j Formatter for Eclipse because Eclipse doesn't support that. It maybe doesn't add any value to code if we add it to short cases, but it makes code a lot clearer if you add it to bigger cases. But how to determine how big a case needs to be to make it "ok" to add curly braces? This is like saying how big does need a tidal wave to be to close the Thames Barrier or to leave it open? If it's 2 meters and 99 centimeters it's ok and if it's 3 meters it's not ok ? To every rule there is a downside and an upside a.k.a a bad side and a good side. That is something you cannot escape. It was a rule made by Zoey and UnAfraid since they find it useful. I do not understand why there has to be so much useless words spend over that while it takes merely 10 seconds for a contributor to add them before posting a contribution.
[...]
I hope L2j will stay on it's curse and complete Hi5 in total. Which means all features implented and core reworked completely as in L2Script,Quest,AbstractNpcAI etc. reworked Jython removed and new listeners from UnAfraid implented. That would make Hi5 Core a great starting point for trying to develop new chronicles and update old ones based on current core. Even though some reject the idea of 1 core and many datapacks it would be the easiest to maintain it imho.[...]
Code: Select all
// ... import javolution.util.FastTable; public class FastList<E> extends FastTable<E> {}
In my opinion too, they should be congratulated. Every single one of them. But I also add to that, that they also need to be held accountable for the stuff they do wrong, and persist in doing so. If they ever get the feeling that everything they do only rewards them with "bad talk" and "nonsense", then IMO they should rather take it as evidence of... "something", and maybe act accordingly to fix it. But that's not what I see happening. If nobody tells them when they are wrong, how can they know when according to their standards everything is good? Of course, they also have grown the habit of dismissing this kind of feedback, as if people are just bashing them. Like maneco2 is doing: this is not bashing them. It's called "discussion". I understand that people are not used to seeing this here.maneco2 wrote:The l2jserver team this getting pretty good, and who want to talk nonsense and bad that it's free, find something else to do, all are to be congratulated.
What?? Where's the source then?we have customs in our outdated 5.x version
jurchiks wrote:Are you kidding me? You now have moderation on the posts in this thread? Censorship is what I call it.
Edit: WTF, I wrote a reply to this thread and the post was said to be awaiting moderation. That's not solving the no-reply from ?f=1 problem.
There was problems with that impl with more then 200 players server went unstable.jurchiks wrote:We had boneCP 3 years ago when it wasn't even v1:
http://trac.l2jserver.com/changeset/4554/
And it was reverted 2 days later by nBd:
http://trac.l2jserver.com/changeset/4576/
Read the commit message and think how it relates to our current discussion.
What?? Where's the source then?we have customs in our outdated 5.x version
The better option is to implement hibernate and use JPA approach but that requires hell of a changes to be implemented right.jurchiks wrote:The point about c3p0 being obsolete still stands though. There are better options out there.
It's not obsolte, read my previous post.jurchiks wrote:The point about c3p0 being obsolete still stands though. There are better options out there.