Fix for disconnect showing 1 too many users online.

[jjarmis]

I have noticed that when a user disconnects from the shard it always shows 1 more user online than there is after the disconnect. This is an easy fix:

On line 721 and 723 in Netstate.cs (from the core) is where these messages are displayed. Replace this:

if ( ns.m_Account != null )
	Console.WriteLine( "Client: {0}: Disconnected. [{1} Online] [{2}]", ns, m_Instances.Count, ns.m_Account );
else
	Console.WriteLine( "Client: {0}: Disconnected. [{1} Online]", ns, m_Instances.Count );

With this:

if ( ns.m_Account != null )
	Console.WriteLine( "Client: {0}: Disconnected. [{1} Online] [{2}]", ns, (m_Instances.Count - 1), ns.m_Account );
else
	Console.WriteLine( "Client: {0}: Disconnected. [{1} Online]", ns, (m_Instances.Count - 1) );

[Khaz]

Great. I'll put it in and try it out soon. Thanks for the mod.

[krrios]

Oops, thanks.

[jjarmis]

Heh, no prob. I figured it was just a slight oversight.

[stooge]

Originally Posted by jjarmis

I have noticed that when a user disconnects from the shard it always shows 1 more user online than there is after the disconnect. This is an easy fix:

On line 721 and 723 in Netstate.cs (from the core) is where these messages are displayed. Replace this:

if ( ns.m_Account != null )
	Console.WriteLine( "Client: {0}: Disconnected. [{1} Online] [{2}]", ns, m_Instances.Count, ns.m_Account );
else
	Console.WriteLine( "Client: {0}: Disconnected. [{1} Online]", ns, m_Instances.Count );

With this:

if ( ns.m_Account != null )
	Console.WriteLine( "Client: {0}: Disconnected. [{1} Online] [{2}]", ns, (m_Instances.Count - 1), ns.m_Account );
else
	Console.WriteLine( "Client: {0}: Disconnected. [{1} Online]", ns, (m_Instances.Count - 1) );

I was having the same issue. I haven't really had a chance to mess around with the core. I'll figure out how to edit my Core later tonight. In the meanwhile, I'd like to know if this issue is causing any damage to my server or any other files? In other words does it need ot be fixed ASAP or can it wait until I have more time to read up on core modifications?

[Khaz]

What jjarmis posted is the fix for it. It's clearly not damaging, but it's a nuisance that's easily solvable.

[stooge]

Originally Posted by Khaz

What jjarmis posted is the fix for it. It's clearly not damaging, but it's a nuisance that's easily solvable.

I understand that that is the fix. I misunderstood when he said "core" fix. I actually thought I'd have to download the open source of the core and edit somethg there. I can't find NetState.cs in my RunUO folder. I did a search.

Edit:
I downloaded the Source Code and unzipped it and found NetState.cs. of course.
Now it's time for me to read up on how to edit/recompile it all after I make the fix.
Thanks again.

[sidphoenix]

I have no clue how to edit the core, so can someone send me a working version?

[Quantos]

It's a violation of the EULA for anyone to send you the files. You are better off waiting for the next release if you (like some of us) don't want to recompile the core.

[stooge]

Originally Posted by sidphoenix

I have no clue how to edit the core, so can someone send me a working version?

Will RunUO 1.0.1 have the fix?

[Quantos]

Assuming that I interpreted Krrios' post correctly, then yes it will be in the next release.

[sidphoenix]

Wow, quick to jump down my throat are we? If I knew a moderator would get pissy about people sending me files, I wouldnt of brought it up. But hey, how can you make sure nobody sends me files? I mean, cant someone IM me and send it to me from there?

Just a thought.

[jjarmis]

That is like asking how software companies can stop people from pirating their software. Just because it is easy to do doesn't mean it isn't illegal.

[sidphoenix]

Well I am just saying, why is it illegal to have someone edit the core for me and send me the update? It would just be helping me out. Its not like hes giving me $1,000 worth the software here....

[jjarmis]

Because it is against the EULA read it, live by it, and you wont get sued. ^_^ Just because the program is free for you to use doesn't mean it is free for you to do whatever you want with.

[sidphoenix]

So let me get this straight. I (myself) can make changes, but nobody can make changes and give me the updated changes?

[jjarmis]

Exactly, because that would be redistrabution of a modified core, which if you READ the EULA is illegal.

[sidphoenix]

Well hes not redistributing it to me, im sending the core to someone, the other person will make the change and give it back. Its not distribution, its editing it. I wouldnt be giving it to others...

[jjarmis]

doesn't matter, it is still redistrabution, whether one or a thousand download it.

[sidphoenix]

Okay, say that I hire someone to my shard, and give him FTP access to my folder that has the core. Technically hes not downloading the core, hes updating the files on my computer though FTP. Or, if he uses a program like AnywherePC and uses my screen to make changes. Technically thats "legal" isnt it?

[jjarmis]

NO, no matter how you try to sidestep it, it is still redistrabution. If someone edits the core, then gives it to someone else in any way shape or form, that is redistrabution.

[sidphoenix]

Technically hes not distributing it to me though. If a guy comes to my house and edits it on my computer, its not redistribution. Its helping! Ok ok ok, how about this, I get someone to come over, and tell me exactly what to put on what line, pointing me the whole way though. Would that be distribution too?

[jjarmis]

Well, what do you think I did in the very first post of this thread?

Make the mods yourself, recompile yourself. That is the point of posting here.

[sidphoenix]

Sigh...You should brush up on your legal work man.

[sidphoenix]

Sigh...

Would it be "illegal" if I had a chimp do it for me? Or does the EULA apply to other species as well...