open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked Blog: Fixing Lag: And I, for one, welcome our new automaton overlords
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4

Author Topic

Ix Forres
Caldari
Righteous Chaps
Posted - 2010.08.18 22:11:00 - [61]
 

Edited by: Ix Forres on 18/08/2010 22:13:42
Originally by: CCP Oveur
... snipforlength ...

EVE Gate is something we control. It does justify the cost and investment in the cluster.

So it wasn't a choice between EVE Gate OR the API because EVE Gates purpose is far more than it's bi-directional connection to EVE. The choice was, "with this approach we can accelerate any devices bi-directional access to Tranquility while doing EVE Gate", which has to be done regardless. It could have been to "let's make EVE Gate" and not have the API benefit from this work.

So no, it isn't a statement of fact that you would have had evemail up and running faster had we put the EVE Gate team on just developing the API. You would have lots of more options and you could read a lot more data but it would most certainly not be a bi-directional service today.

Why? Because even after all this effort, the scalability and security is achieved in a very purpose built and controlled environment and considerable work is still required to turn all that work into an open API.

And I prefer finishing that work while minimizing risk to the Tranquility cluster.

I don't know how I can put it simpler than that and I hope it answered your question. If not, feel free to continue asking Wink


Okay, thanks for continuing this conversation at the very least.

Still, I'm going to be picky. Hope you don't mind.

The API's usage is entirely controllable by CCP. Any decision not to control this is in CCP's hands, not 3rd party devs. I wasn't aware the API had ever caused issues on the cluster, especially since the SQL Server 2k8 upgrade, which specifically identified being able to impose hard limits on the API as a major plus.

EVE Gate is something you control as much as you control the API. Fundamentally, EVE Gate is just another API; it just has more overhead like stylesheets, page layout information, and so on. The API just has the data, none of that extraneous stuff. Your browser makes GET and POST requests to EVE Gate just like we make to the API. Technically they're extremely similar beasts at heart.

What I fail to see is why out of this list of choices, which as far as I understand from what you're saying, are all valid:
  • Make the bi-directional interface and make EVE Gate

  • Make the bi-directional interface and improve the API

  • Don't make the bi-directional interface and improve the API

... why you seem to treat the second option as if it is impossible, when in reality it involves less work than the first option and results in better output in terms of end-user benefits.

If you assume the API had everything EVE Gate does - and at this point, we're just saying "What if you had no art/webdesign people and just spat XML at browsers?", which imposes no additional constraints on CCP - then we would have those tools, and later iterations of CCP devs could make an official site using those same APIs, maybe using an additional internal API for authentication instead of using API keys. And we'd have the bi-directional interface and the associated cluster stability increasing tools that have been done for EVE Gate, because you could have just as easily made them for the API.

I hope you can see what I'm getting at here; why was the decision made between EVE Gate and the API when the underlying technical requirements are practically identical? Why did CCP choose the option that took additional developer time and resulted in - for the playerbase - a poorer result? And let's face it, let the players choose between EVEmon/EDK and EVE Gate in terms of usefulness - and it's clear what people actually use. If CCP made a killboard now, most people would keep their existing boards. Same deal with skill planners, mail clients, you name it. I'm not saying CCP can't beat the players at making tools for EVE, but why should CCP even bother trying when the players are putting all this (free!) effort into it and doing such a good job already?

Menkala
Posted - 2010.08.18 22:15:00 - [62]
 

<lowering the tone>

Hehe, ASCII CCP logo looks like wang and pubes. Shocked

</lowering the tone>


TornSoul
BIG
Gentlemen's Agreement
Posted - 2010.08.18 22:33:00 - [63]
 

Hi Oveur
Hi Ix

Seems to me you two might be talking a bit past each other (I could be utterly wrong)

--

What I read Oveur saying (also between the lines), is that (for some reason(*)) CCP decided that EVE Gate was/is to be an important "product".
Part of a strategy (? (*))
(I think this is the part Ix might be missing - if true at all. I'm guessing/speculating here)

As such it's "set in stone" that EVE Gate is/will happen (and thus the resources to do so are allocated)

What Oveur then says is that as a beneficial side effect of that happening anyway, a lot of the infrastructure needed for that is also going to happen anyways - and as such will benefit the EVE API in the long run.


---

(*)
What strategy or why this is so (i.e. "set in stone")?

How about... A tie-in with the consoles that are needed to play DUST?
I.e. EVE Gate (and more?) on the consoles, to bring the EVE players and DUST players more together.

Dunno... just a wild shot in the dark here.

---

Ix if you look at it like that - I.e. that EVE Gate simply has to be - Due to other concerns (afore mentioned strategy), then I think Oveurs answers make more sense - Non?

---

I should add that I too am one of those 3rd party developers (mostly for my own stuff) and that I too am longing (nay *craving*) for some more API love...

And I have pretty much the same "impetus" as Ix :
"Just give us the damn data (pref bi-directional) already, and we will make all the tools in the world for you (CCP) - Gratis, as well"


Frug
Omega Wing
Snatch Victory
Posted - 2010.08.18 22:37:00 - [64]
 

Originally by: Ix Forres
stuff


Oh stop pressing it. They did eve gate because they can control it, and because they wanted to make evegate anyway (probably a decision influenced by management because they can advertise evegate far easier than they can advertise the existence of an api).
Granted it took forever for them to mention anything to you at all about api development and they left you hanging, and granted it took forever for api advancements to happen, but the addition of evegate to the process is hardly a big issue.

Ix Forres
Caldari
Righteous Chaps
Posted - 2010.08.18 22:52:00 - [65]
 

Edited by: Ix Forres on 18/08/2010 23:02:20
Edited by: Ix Forres on 18/08/2010 22:58:00
Originally by: TornSoul
Hi Oveur
Hi Ix

Seems to me you two might be talking a bit past each other (I could be utterly wrong)

--

What I read Oveur saying (also between the lines), is that (for some reason(*)) CCP decided that EVE Gate was/is to be an important "product".
Part of a strategy (? (*))
(I think this is the part Ix might be missing - if true at all. I'm guessing/speculating here)

As such it's "set in stone" that EVE Gate is/will happen (and thus the resources to do so are allocated)

What Oveur then says is that as a beneficial side effect of that happening anyway, a lot of the infrastructure needed for that is also going to happen anyways - and as such will benefit the EVE API in the long run.


---

(*)
What strategy or why this is so (i.e. "set in stone")?

How about... A tie-in with the consoles that are needed to play DUST?
I.e. EVE Gate (and more?) on the consoles, to bring the EVE players and DUST players more together.

Dunno... just a wild shot in the dark here.

---

Ix if you look at it like that - I.e. that EVE Gate simply has to be - Due to other concerns (afore mentioned strategy), then I think Oveurs answers make more sense - Non?

---

I should add that I too am one of those 3rd party developers (mostly for my own stuff) and that I too am longing (nay *craving*) for some more API love...

And I have pretty much the same "impetus" as Ix :
"Just give us the damn data (pref bi-directional) already, and we will make all the tools in the world for you (CCP) - Gratis, as well"




Yes, I do get that- my point is more _why_ CCP decided that EVE Gate was an important product in their development cycle and something that they had to do. That's the interesting part here, and something I'd like to hear about. At the end of the day the infrastructure and such like I said is fairly interchangeable between EVE Gate and API, or at least that sounds like where CCP wants to take it. Oveur's answers make sense _if you accept that EVE Gate has to happen_. I make no such assumptions.

Originally by: Frug
Originally by: Ix Forres
stuff


Oh stop pressing it. They did eve gate because they can control it, and because they wanted to make evegate anyway (probably a decision influenced by management because they can advertise evegate far easier than they can advertise the existence of an api).
Granted it took forever for them to mention anything to you at all about api development and they left you hanging, and granted it took forever for api advancements to happen, but the addition of evegate to the process is hardly a big issue.


Yes and no. Addition of EVE Gate is a big deal because it marks a significant shift in CCP's strategy, and one that has been at the partial expense of development of the API, which has left third party developers considerably ****ed off and at the least miffed that CCP has, for all intents and purposes, abandoned the API in terms of actual developments for the best part of 2 years and going on 3 with no communication whatsoever. What we've had added to the API since the good 'ol days (I'm talking mid/late 2007) has been inconsequential and fairly useless. We have things like the EVE Mail API that have been as far as we can tell intentionally pre-nerfed to stop people from replicating EVE Gate's functionality - and that's just read-only functionality (not being able to get mail bodies from the API).

What we have here - somebody actually talking about the API (at long bloody last) is a nice change, but at the end of the day I'll join Mynxee in being impressed and thankful when we see results that merit it. Words are one thing, results are quite another.

CCP Oveur

Posted - 2010.08.18 23:06:00 - [66]
 

Originally by: Ix Forres



Okay, thanks for continuing this conversation at the very least.

Still, I'm going to be picky. Hope you don't mind.

snip

Lets start with repeating myself and elaborate to emphasize the point Very Happy

The decision wasn't made between EVE Gate or the API. EVE Gates purpose includes a lot of things which has absolutely nothing at all to do with the API or it's future incarnations, has functionality which we have to do and operate ourselves and no third party could do for us and it will run services which require high availability as part of our commitment to our customers.

Customer: "I can't use the service because the payment didn't go through and now it's down so I can't change this"

Should I answer "Go talk to Ix Forres, this is not our responsibility"?

I hope this explains clearly why there is no "why EVE Gate instead of the API" or "why not bi-directional and API". There is a subset, which EVE Gate and the API have in common and can mutually benefit from moving forward, the bi-directional interface. That is exactly what is happening.

On the controlled environment and the API.
Sure, of course we can control load to some extent but that is just one of so many factors that can cause load. I'm sure you aren't aware what happened and how many times, you aren't in the favorable position I am of having run EVE as a service. With associated phonecalls, hatemails and emorage all the time. Christmas not excluded.

Now imagine the possible problems, where we have the load factors, we have the security issues and we have exploitability of exposing the backend. Now imagine that we're not the one creating the application that uses said interface, we just open it up and are going to wait and see till someone makes an evemail client that uses the API.

I can't take that risk with the Tranquility cluster.

So we decided to use the opportunity that EVE Gate could create for the API. We create the client. We test it all. We control it. Risk is reduced. And I take risk control on Tranquility very seriously because it't not only something I love, it's something that puts food on the table for 600 people.

Lastly - and certainly not least, this isn't about "us" vs "them" in creating an applications for the customers. I'm pretty sure, no let me rephrase, I'm convinced that EVE Gate isn't going to replace things such as EVEMon. Because that's not it's purpose.

We have a set of services we are going to provide to our customers through EVE Gate. Some of them are game functions. Some of them are account functions. Some of them are communication functions. Some of them productivity functions. But they are part of what we have defined as the future basic services we provide.

That's why we have a basic versions, which we operate. There might be a choice for some of them. They could use evemail in EVE Gate or in some other application. But I'm pretty sure account management, PLEX, buddy system, value added services, character creation etc. is not going to go through the API.

So I'm sorry. As much as I wish ... and believe me, I do wish this, I'm paying the bills and watching time tick by ... this just isn't as simple as this. Not in technical terms. Not in financial terms. Not in terms of risk.

TornSoul
BIG
Gentlemen's Agreement
Posted - 2010.08.18 23:11:00 - [67]
 

Edited by: TornSoul on 18/08/2010 23:15:42
Originally by: Ix Forres

Oveur's answers make sense _if you accept that EVE Gate has to happen_. I make no such assumptions.


I admit to making that assumption.
Else EVE Gate (and the resources thrown at it) doesn't make much sense imo.
(especially in it's current iteration... which is.. well.. meh)

Originally by: Ix Forres

my point is more _why_ CCP decided that EVE Gate was an important product in their development cycle and something that they had to do. That's the interesting part here, and something I'd like to hear about.


The _why_ is very interesting indeed (hopefully...)
I'm curious as well.



Edit : No fair. Oveur posting while I was typing Razz
Oh well Wink


CCP Oveur

Posted - 2010.08.18 23:16:00 - [68]
 

Originally by: Ix Forres


Yes, I do get that- my point is more _why_ CCP decided that EVE Gate was an important product in their development cycle and something that they had to do. That's the interesting part here, and something I'd like to hear about. At the end of the day the infrastructure and such like I said is fairly interchangeable between EVE Gate and API, or at least that sounds like where CCP wants to take it. Oveur's answers make sense _if you accept that EVE Gate has to happen_. I make no such assumptions.

Originally by: Frug
Originally by: Ix Forres
stuff


Oh stop pressing it. They did eve gate because they can control it, and because they wanted to make evegate anyway (probably a decision influenced by management because they can advertise evegate far easier than they can advertise the existence of an api).
Granted it took forever for them to mention anything to you at all about api development and they left you hanging, and granted it took forever for api advancements to happen, but the addition of evegate to the process is hardly a big issue.


Yes and no. Addition of EVE Gate is a big deal because it marks a significant shift in CCP's strategy, and one that has been at the partial expense of development of the API, which has left third party developers considerably ****ed off and at the least miffed that CCP has, for all intents and purposes, abandoned the API in terms of actual developments for the best part of 2 years and going on 3 with no communication whatsoever. What we've had added to the API since the good 'ol days (I'm talking mid/late 2007) has been inconsequential and fairly useless. We have things like the EVE Mail API that have been as far as we can tell intentionally pre-nerfed to stop people from replicating EVE Gate's functionality - and that's just read-only functionality (not being able to get mail bodies from the API).

What we have here - somebody actually talking about the API (at long bloody last) is a nice change, but at the end of the day I'll join Mynxee in being impressed and thankful when we see results that merit it. Words are one thing, results are quite another.


Some quick answers before I go home to sleep.

Tornsoul is spot on and I was pretty sure I had made it clear before, EVE Gate happens, regardless of the API. And it's purpose is not to replace any applications which use the API.

I've also talked about the API every year, including at fanfest and other conferences, since 2007.

The technologies are certainly not interchangeable. I wish Laughing

The evemail in API isn't nerfed to prevent competition to EVE Gate, that's ridiculous. In fact, it's a stellar example of how careful we're treading around the API.

And I totally agree with you and Mynxee on words vs results. There is a 9 page thread from Friday which I stated the same things repeatedly. Glad we agree Wink

elissa ferman
Posted - 2010.08.19 00:01:00 - [69]
 

Great to se someone else is fidling with asyc, mock objects and crazy inheritance stuff ;)

Sounds a bit like my pet project (a bot playing a pretty well known social browser game) and you gave me some nice ideas.

Any information of the loc you had to invest to get the control app in place?
Any plans to add some fuzzy logic or ai code inside?

Liz

Luke S
Zeta Corp.
Posted - 2010.08.19 00:03:00 - [70]
 

Edited by: Luke S on 19/08/2010 00:03:40
I am shocked on how much blues are posting now. This kicks So much ass!

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2010.08.19 00:27:00 - [71]
 

Originally by: CCP Oveur

The decision wasn't made between EVE Gate or the API. EVE Gates purpose includes a lot of things which has absolutely nothing at all to do with the API or it's future incarnations, has functionality which we have to do and operate ourselves and no third party could do for us and it will run services which require high availability as part of our commitment to our customers.
...
We have a set of services we are going to provide to our customers through EVE Gate. Some of them are game functions. Some of them are account functions. Some of them are communication functions. Some of them productivity functions. But they are part of what we have defined as the future basic services we provide.



Hmm. This implies to me that you're basically using Evegate as a springboard to revamp the entire out of game user experience across all of your products - from the forums and subscription management to certain in game features. Man, that honestly sounds pretty awesome.

Quote:
I hope this explains clearly why there is no "why EVE Gate instead of the API" or "why not bi-directional and API". There is a subset, which EVE Gate and the API have in common and can mutually benefit from moving forward, the bi-directional interface. That is exactly what is happening.


Does this mean that Evegate and/or the API will eventually become bidirectional - such as able to change skills, update market orders, or perform corp management tasks?

Quote:
On the controlled environment and the API. Sure, of course we can control load to some extent but that is just one of so many factors that can cause load. I can't take that risk with the Tranquility cluster.


The funny thing is that as long as the API is read only, its a lot easier to control its access and impact (caching known/frequent API calls to secondary web servers, etc). Once it starts becoming bidirectional, I can see it quickly becoming very very difficult to control that impact. But, I'm not sure that it'll be any harder to control than if someone was scraping Evegate itself.

I guess the difference is that I'd have to trust Ix with my username/password as opposed to my API info? Its a steep barrier, but not incomprehensible.

Quote:
That's why we have a basic versions, which we operate. There might be a choice for some of them. They could use evemail in EVE Gate or in some other application. But I'm pretty sure account management, PLEX, buddy system, value added services, character creation etc. is not going to go through the API.


I agree, there's lots of stuff that cannot and should not be trusted to third party application developers. CCP absolutely must maintain direct control of these pieces of information. I also appreciate that you are being very forthcoming about not wanting to kill the Eve API community - I've seen some nasty allegations to the contrary on that.

Also, I hope you guys are considering using standard protocols for some of this. I have *NO IDEA* how most of this is implemented, but I'd personally consider using real email protocols for evemail, IRC for in game chat, etc. Code that you don't have to maintain is a precious precious commodity.

-Liang

Shaalira D'arc
Posted - 2010.08.19 00:34:00 - [72]
 

Originally by: Manfred Rickenbocker
Awwww maaaaaaan! I wanna play EVE Text Adventure too!ugh


> jump gate
There is no "gate" here.

> warp gate
Warp drive initiated.
Grid loaded.
You see a Hurricane, a Hurricane, an elite Gallente frigate wreck, an Ishkur, a Crow, an Amamake gate, a cargo container, a sentry gun, a sentry gun, a sentry gun, and a sentry gun.

> jump gate
You cannot jump because of your Global Criminal Countdown.
You are being targeted.
You are being targeted.
You are being targeted.

> shoot Crow
You are not targeting a "Crow"
A Crow attacks you and hits! 26 damage.
You are being warp scrambled.
You are being webbed.

> target Crow
Targeting crow.
A Hurricane attacks you and hits! 346 damage.
A Hurricane attacks you and misses.
A Crow attacks you. Critical hit! 121 damage.
Targeting complete.

> shoot Crow
You have no weapons equipped.

> equip rail
You are not carrying a 125mm Railgun I

> get rail
You get a 125mm Railgun I from your backpack.
A Hurricane attacks you and hits! 299 damage.
A Hurricane attacks you and hits! 312 damage
A Crow attacks you and misses.
You have been destroyed.

> look
You are in a station. You see a clone, a clone, a bored doctor, a clone, a medical drone, and an open tank. There are exits to the n, e, and s.

A Soporific
Caldari
Old Man Johnson's Bakery Delivery Service
Posted - 2010.08.19 04:42:00 - [73]
 

Can I fight it? If no, then why not?

Mara Rinn
Posted - 2010.08.19 05:13:00 - [74]
 

I'll just echo one of the previous comments here - what if some of the black screen lag problem is due to edge cases involving latency, out-of-order packets or dropped packets?

I can imagine there might be some confusion if, say, a client was to attempt to log in to the destination system's local before it had registered itself with the sol node?

Moore cyno
Posted - 2010.08.19 06:53:00 - [75]
 

I see a forthcoming massive breach of EULA by CCP using bots in an unprecedented scale :-)

Hun Jakuza
We Are So Troubled Everyone Runs Screaming
Posted - 2010.08.19 06:54:00 - [76]
 

Originally by: Shaalira D'arc
Originally by: Manfred Rickenbocker
Awwww maaaaaaan! I wanna play EVE Text Adventure too!ugh


> jump gate
There is no "gate" here.

> warp gate
Warp drive initiated.
Grid loaded.
You see a Hurricane, a Hurricane, an elite Gallente frigate wreck, an Ishkur, a Crow, an Amamake gate, a cargo container, a sentry gun, a sentry gun, a sentry gun, and a sentry gun.

> jump gate
You cannot jump because of your Global Criminal Countdown.
You are being targeted.
You are being targeted.
You are being targeted.

> shoot Crow
You are not targeting a "Crow"
A Crow attacks you and hits! 26 damage.
You are being warp scrambled.
You are being webbed.

> target Crow
Targeting crow.
A Hurricane attacks you and hits! 346 damage.
A Hurricane attacks you and misses.
A Crow attacks you. Critical hit! 121 damage.
Targeting complete.

> shoot Crow
You have no weapons equipped.

> equip rail
You are not carrying a 125mm Railgun I

> get rail
You get a 125mm Railgun I from your backpack.
A Hurricane attacks you and hits! 299 damage.
A Hurricane attacks you and hits! 312 damage
A Crow attacks you and misses.
You have been destroyed.

> look
You are in a station. You see a clone, a clone, a bored doctor, a clone, a medical drone, and an open tank. There are exits to the n, e, and s.


Twisted Evil

Zargyl
Black Thorne Corporation
Black Thorne Alliance
Posted - 2010.08.19 08:29:00 - [77]
 

Thank you CCP Atropos for this blog and all the information it contains. That ASCII pic/login does remind me of the time I used to play MUDs ugh Anyway aside from the thin clients very nice and concrete uses of helping you debug and simulate lots of clients, have you also looked into the possibility to use it for in-game features?

Using this technology could you orchestra huge NPC fleet buildups for example? E.g. I guess most of the Sansha invasion events are done by helpers, but if those could steer quite a few of those thin-clients, couldn't that be used to simulate a fleet buildup of e.g. a Jovian or an Empire fleet? And be used for that too for events or scripted PvE content?

/me envisions an Empire fleet building up in high-sec, or a scripted Blood Raider attacks on asteroid communities "played" by those thin clients that PCs could try to foil in low-sec.

Louis deGuerre
Gallente
Malevolence.
Posted - 2010.08.19 09:37:00 - [78]
 

Great stuff Razz

* has visions of macroers getting their hands on this and recoils in horror *

Amida Ta
German Mining and Manufacture Corp.
Posted - 2010.08.19 09:47:00 - [79]
 

Hmm, that screenshot sure looks like a CLI/.Net application.
Didn't you say you used python?

Dr Magal
Posted - 2010.08.19 10:00:00 - [80]
 

So when can we players expect to be pitted against your thin client fleet during a mass-test on Singularity?

CCP Atropos

Posted - 2010.08.19 10:14:00 - [81]
 

Originally by: Zargyl
Thank you CCP Atropos for this blog and all the information it contains. That ASCII pic/login does remind me of the time I used to play MUDs ugh Anyway aside from the thin clients very nice and concrete uses of helping you debug and simulate lots of clients, have you also looked into the possibility to use it for in-game features?

Using this technology could you orchestra huge NPC fleet buildups for example? E.g. I guess most of the Sansha invasion events are done by helpers, but if those could steer quite a few of those thin-clients, couldn't that be used to simulate a fleet buildup of e.g. a Jovian or an Empire fleet? And be used for that too for events or scripted PvE content?

/me envisions an Empire fleet building up in high-sec, or a scripted Blood Raider attacks on asteroid communities "played" by those thin clients that PCs could try to foil in low-sec.

We could do, I would still prefer to do it server side, simply because you can do everything in 'god-mode' which makes things easier Razz

CCP Atropos

Posted - 2010.08.19 10:14:00 - [82]
 

Originally by: Amida Ta
Hmm, that screenshot sure looks like a CLI/.Net application.
Didn't you say you used python?

It is Python. Not all Python apps are command line based.

Miraqu
Caldari
Posted - 2010.08.19 11:49:00 - [83]
 

Even though we will not be able to play EvE from the commandline.. *sigh*

I'm happy that there are nice tools for you and you are not trying to downgrade interesting and insightful technical details to suit the reading needs of -probably- a major part of the EvE players.

In short:

<3 CCP, Keep up the good Work!

Tokas III
Minmatar
Posted - 2010.08.19 13:25:00 - [84]
 

Thank you for the dev blog. Much appreciated.

Altaree
The Graduates
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2010.08.19 13:32:00 - [85]
 

This blog series is pure win. These types of communications are why I joined eve in the first place! KEEP IT UP!!!

T'Amber
Garoun Investment Bank
Posted - 2010.08.19 17:28:00 - [86]
 

Nice blog, thanks for the details and all your effort.

-T'amber

Trebor Daehdoow
Gallente
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2010.08.20 03:53:00 - [87]
 

Originally by: CCP Oveur
I said unicorns died when I got technical.


This is EVE, not Hello Kitty Online. Unicorns are petfood. Let us fatten our kittens on their entrails.

RifterDrifter
La Blue Girl
Posted - 2010.08.20 07:38:00 - [88]
 

Is Lag fixed yet?

ceaon
Posted - 2010.08.20 09:31:00 - [89]
 

i want a client that have ship icons instead of the 3 model

Catari Taga
Centre Of Attention
Middle of Nowhere
Posted - 2010.08.20 14:01:00 - [90]
 

Originally by: CCP Oveur
The evemail in API isn't nerfed to prevent competition to EVE Gate, that's ridiculous. In fact, it's a stellar example of how careful we're treading around the API.

With all due respect, that does not make a whole lot of sense. If you can deliver real time EVE mail bodies via EVE Gate with all that ridiculous bloat and browser incompatibility it involves you could as well deliver it read-only and with a cache interval via the API and have less impact on your servers than you have doing it via EVE Gate.


Pages: 1 2 [3] 4

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only