[MUD-Dev] Web vs. Java client
Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes
kamikaze at kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu
Tue Oct 14 19:02:41 New Zealand Daylight Time 2003
Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 09:09:26AM +0200 in
<000901c39222$1d60c390$0a00a8c0 at UNAHACLOSP>, Torgny Bjers
<artovil at arcanerealms.org> spake:
> From: Mark 'Kamikaze' Hughes
>> The MUD engine I'm working on is client-agnostic internally
>> (though it does require images, sounds, fonts, and colored text
>> to be possible). I've so far been using it with a web interface
>> running on Tomcat, but I'm facing enough hassles with that
>> environment that I'm reconsidering it now. My current options
>> are: 1) Pure web browser. The current model I'm using.
> Personally I don't really believe in this for a multi-user game
> platform. It sort of feels like settling for the second best or
> something, if you pardon.
But *why*? Obviously, I have problems with it or I wouldn't be
reconsidering now, but I'd like more feedback than just gut
>> 2) Java applet shown with the Java plug-in. Pro: attractive,
>> updates nigh-instantly, no installation unless the user has to
>> click to get the Java plug-in. Con: more work to develop and
>> maintain (not really a problem for me, but it's time that
>> could be better spent on the server), slow initial download if
>> it gets big, some people (but how many?) don't like to use
>> Java applets. Java Web Start has the same virtues and flaws.
> I'd actually prefer Java Web Start over an inline web page java
> plugin. Would it be possible to just have the client as a
> downloadable applet instead?
They're indistinguishable. JWS is enough more convoluted and
unreliable that I'm not really enthused by it. I don't need any
more permissions than an applet gets, so there's no added value to
The applet would probably have a download as a very optional
advanced option, so people can "install" it if they feel like it,
and they'll just be told to reinstall if they have an out-of-date
version. I don't intend it to get large enough that downloading the
applet every time is a problem, though. If I can't make an applet
smaller than most sites' splash page image, I'm slipping.
>> 3) Other? Are there any good cross-platform (a must) clients
>> that already support everything I need?
> Flash could be a possibility.
Ah, no, it couldn't. Flash is the most awful web design tool since
the <blink> tag. It's fine for making little slightly-interactive
animations. I would never use it for anything serious. It's also
usually a version or two behind on Linux (I develop on Linux, and at
a minimum test on MacOS X and Windows), and development tools cost
money, which I'm really unwilling to give to Macromedia.
But that's really beside the point. I guess I didn't make myself
clear enough: I was wondering if there was an *existing* MUD-like
client that supported images and sounds (think of the graphical
Infocom games for comparison), written in C or whatever. If I'm
going to write a client myself, I've got Java. I'm not going to pay
for an inferior tool to do the same thing.
>> How much interface installation are players of a free MUD
>> willing to put up with? How much when it goes to subscription?
>> > I'd say that they're willing to put up with a bit of >
>> installation. Look at most new subscription games, they come
>> with at > least one whole CD. ;)
That's for well-advertised, boxed, commercial products, though.
Does anyone know, preferably from before/after comparison of a
running MUD, if a download & install procedure cuts hugely into
<a href="http://kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu/~kamikaze/"> Mark Hughes </a>
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
More information about the MUD-Dev