Check out market updates

Pirates Of The Caribbean 2 Dual Audio 720p 241

Pirates Of The Caribbean 2 Dual Audio 720p 241

Click Here

Pirates Of The Caribbean 2 Dual Audio 720p 241

Pirates of the caribbean 2 dual audio 720p download hdrip
Pirates of the caribbean 2 dual audio 720p hindi dubbed brrip 1

Is storing and accessing state over network a problem

At work we’re developing a multiplayer game where each of our clients can communicate with each other as well as the server. For multiplayer there are a few requirements:

all the clients must be playing at the same time
communications must be reliable (no messages lost)

Of course to implement this we’ve had to add a connection layer between client and server and each client has to be able to communicate with the server using a constant stream of requests and responses. The communications are all gRPC and everything is Python 3.7.
The problem we’re running into now is that to make the communication layer between the clients and server stateless, we have a single object the server stores and sends to each client and a separate object that each client stores and sends to the server. If the server ever goes down, or any client disconnects, all state is lost.
I’m not entirely sure if that’s the best way to do it or if the state should be stored server-side and then passed to the clients when they connect. But from a practical perspective, we’re having a problem where when the server is down, the clients can’t log in, click on anything, etc.
Maybe this is a question that should be directed to a different stack exchange. If so, please let me know where, I’ll gladly move.


I don’t see any problem. The client-server communication layer should be as stateless as possible. You could then use the notion of a “session ID” on the server (and the “client ID” on the client) to track state. This seems to be quite a common practice as well, for example Tensorflow offers this notion of a session ID for the same purpose.
Stateful client-server communication have two issues I can think of:

You need to manage state synchronization. Your approach is stateless so this becomes less of a problem. I think, depending on your structure, this may be more work than the benefit of stateless client-server communication.
In some cases, stateful client-server communication may allow other services to track state (e.g. using an “on data change” operation). This may not be the case


Leave a Reply