Lua Challenge: the Catastrophes plugin
#21
No, I had to spread the crater out over multiple ticks. Now it works properly.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#22
But, having luajit would still be nice. ;P
Reply
Thanks given by:
#23
But LuaJit doesn't support all the platforms we're currently supporting.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#24
Well, we can only use luajit when it's supported (using a compile time switch, maybe).
Also, from what i've seen in their docs ( http://luajit.org/install.html ), i doubt many people would care if we dropped those platforms.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#25
Thats right, most-used platforms are compatible
Reply
Thanks given by:
#26
I agree with jan here. Noone is going to run the server under Win10 on a raspberry pi Wink
Reply
Thanks given by:
#27
Of course, i think keeping both options would be the best way - but, if we do have to pick one of them luajit is a better choice.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#28
(05-22-2015, 07:36 PM)NiLSPACE Wrote: Apache License 2.0 is allowed right?


Can I ask what does Apache web-server got to do with internal handles of minecraft(mcserver) I assume it uses Apache for the built in CMS but can you also use it to interact with the server itself?

And if so what does that mean I can use PHP and CSS inside my minecraft server just like it was the uber powerful I LOVE IT SO MUCH scripting engine VariableTriggers?

I really have no idea what you would need apache for that would be useful for a client connecting (other than external website related stuff) so please help me become even more knowledgeable!
Reply
Thanks given by:
#29
Apache License is a type of license, just like MIT or GNU GPLWink

The apache webserver doesn't have anything to do with this Smile

Xoft has "- The code must be under a permissible open-source license (unlicense / public domain preferred)" as one of the conditions for this challenge, but I have a really limited knowledge about licenses.
Reply
Thanks given by:
#30
@NiLSPACE, GNU is not a license. I assume you meant to GPL family of licenses.

My guess is not GPL. But the wording xoft used suggested any non-infectious open source license would be OK, so that the code can be combined, but the more permissions the license grants the easier it becomes to combine the code. So Apache would be OK, but non-ideal.
Reply
Thanks given by: NiLSPACE




Users browsing this thread: 28 Guest(s)