Sending command to the server

[provocating]

Is it possible to send commands directly to the server, I guess it would be zone ? Like if I wanted to make changes to the database, then maybe reload the zone from a tool, etc.

What I am trying to do is make myself a custom tool and be able to do a #reloadpl or #repop from my tool.

[Tabasco]

It might be possible through the telnet interface, but assuming communicating with the zone isn't a headache by itself, you would have to specify what zone process gets the command in the first place, and unless you're running all statics, you would have to figure out which dynamic launcher is hosting your zone, etc.

I would think you would want to be logged in to test your changes after a #reloadqst or #repop anyway, and there are only certain DB edits you can make live.

Can you provide some more details about the tool and how it fits into your development pipeline?

[provocating]

Still just in the thought process of the best way to do it. I wanted to use something in the .NET framework, since that is what I have my little bit of experience in.

[Tabasco]

At this point the tool language is irrelevant and without a larger picture of what you're wanting it's going to be difficult to provide meaningful suggestions.

The only thing that comes to mind is an editing / GM tool that I thought about a while back (and I'm sure I'm not the first) that lets you log in with a very thin EQ client for strictly administrative or developmental purposes. A 2d or loc driven interface that would give you a client presence without actually being visible or having to worry about clipping and maps while still being able to issue commands and communicate with players. I guess it would be a sort of fancy EQ shell that goes above and beyond the telnet interface.

Again, more details would be helpful.

[Akkadius]

Originally Posted by Tabasco

At this point the tool language is irrelevant and without a larger picture of what you're wanting it's going to be difficult to provide meaningful suggestions.

The only thing that comes to mind is an editing / GM tool that I thought about a while back (and I'm sure I'm not the first) that lets you log in with a very thin EQ client for strictly administrative or developmental purposes. A 2d or loc driven interface that would give you a client presence without actually being visible or having to worry about clipping and maps while still being able to issue commands and communicate with players. I guess it would be a sort of fancy EQ shell that goes above and beyond the telnet interface.

Again, more details would be helpful.

I think the telnet interface could simply be expanded upon, it isn't nearly used enough, then other tools built in other languages could simply interface with the telnet shell if need be.

But then this also goes back to the general tool subject, I'd love to spend time developing tools that are flexible and do a lot of really handy stuff right at your finger tips. There's a lot that I could put together but anytime I do spend is helping others or trying to work on my own project (Not Funhouse) which gets blown to the side with my 60-70 hrs work week.

Georges has done alot for the community by providing tools using ODBC but as far as implementing new features I've never had the opportunity to speak with him on the subject of feature requests or development, but there could be a lot of nice things that could be done from a management perspective and development perspective.

[Tabasco]

That's really why the tool language doesn't matter. You're not going to magically manipulate the server without hooks or some kind of command API.

I'm partial to the PEQ editor, but aside from typical editing functionality most of my own tools are custom. I'm comfortable with CLI so they're not very user-friendly and they tend to apply specifically to my content and global mechanics. When they have broad appeal I like to share. I think that's probably the best we can do.

If Georges tools were open source you guys could just collaborate, but that's his call. I really don't get any mileage out of them.

[Akkadius]

Originally Posted by Tabasco

That's really why the tool language doesn't matter. You're not going to magically manipulate the server without hooks or some kind of command API.

I'm partial to the PEQ editor, but aside from typical editing functionality most of my own tools are custom. I'm comfortable with CLI so they're not very user-friendly and they tend to apply specifically to my content and global mechanics. When they have broad appeal I like to share. I think that's probably the best we can do.

If Georges tools were open source you guys could just collaborate, but that's his call. I really don't get any mileage out of them.

There are a few things I use Georges tools for, simply because there's functionally that can definitely be used. For example the zone adventure tool, but I'd like to add other options and capabilities to it (*cough, open source! ). Most manipulation I do is not done using a GUI tool.

Originally Posted by Tabasco

You're not going to magically manipulate the server without hooks or some kind of command API.

There's plenty that a simple SQL oriented tool program can do from a development standpoint.

But from what he's getting at I would agree with the API/hook statement, though there is already a slim framework ported to an html interface already.

Right now it's not able to be done via stock code, so really it comes down to someone implementing a more sophisticated management interface whether it is through the telnet interface or by hooks manipulating existing functions without making telnet functions that tie to existing functions.