Subj : Re: Doors/Utility Suggestions?
To   : alt.bbs.doors
From : rhythmnp@aol.comSTOPSPAM (RhythmNp)
Date : Fri Aug 22 2003 08:36 am

>> The setup I described simplifies it a bit, 
>> basically you'd change that 32bit telnet program
>> into a client+server that connects to itself on
>> localhost, and then launches the 32bit door...
>> this would eliminate the need for GameSrv, and
>> also wouldn't need to run constantly (hence much
>> more efficient)...

>If I do a
>dos32 console version of GameSrv (which is beyond
>my knowlegde on how to program something like that)
>I would have it where you can just load it without
>going through a telnet session to run the games.
>Like when your in the WFC screen of a bbs package
>and locally login-in and run the doors without going
>through a modem.  I haven't testted my theory yet though.
>
>I understand what you mean though, because if I
>don't do it threw a telnet session the door will
>detect that the socket (telnet) is closed and
>will close the port.  So, you would have to
>run a local(127.0.0.1, localhost) loop so the
>door doesn't think the user hung-up and close.

I think we're basically saying the same thing in different words :)

To clarify what I was saying in my previous post... I haven't read up on
sockets in a while, but if I remember correctly, you have to actually have the
socket be connected to something in order for the socket descriptor in WinSock
to be valid.  That's why I said it may be necessary to make the 32bit
intermediate program be a combined client/server that connects to itself with a
telnet-like protocol -- it may be necessary to do this before you can pass a
valid socket to a door32 game.  (With any luck, tho, I'm wrong -- if this isn't
necessary to do the above, it would make the intermediate program a lot easier
to write :)

I've been thinking, the easiest way around this mess would be if the Door32
specs could be expanded, in order to add a standardized option of using an
alternate file-based protocol.  This would definitely make things a million
times easier for running door32 stuff on 16-bit BBS software (a single
intermediate 16bit door would still be required, but that's not too difficult).
 Unfortunately, I doubt that all of the doorkit authors would be willing to add
this to their doorkits in a standardized fashion :(

.