Merge pull request #55 from TheLovinator1/patch-1

Fix typo
This commit is contained in:
Fletcher Dunn
2019-03-14 10:29:49 -07:00
committed by GitHub
+4 -4
View File
@@ -251,7 +251,7 @@ This extension comes in handy if you're editing the Meson build files.
VS Marketplace Link: https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=asabil.meson
## Roadmap
the current focus is to get a stable release that matches the first release of
The current focus is to get a stable release that matches the first release of
this interface in the public Steamworks SDK.
After that, here are some large features that we expect to add to a future
@@ -267,13 +267,13 @@ would do just as good. Whatever method we use, needs to work even if the app
code inspects the state and decides not to send a message. In this case, the
bandwidth estimation logic might perceive that the channel is not
"data-limited", when it essentially is. We could add an entry point to allow
the application to express this, but this is getting complicted, making it more
the application to express this, but this is getting complicated, making it more
difficult for app code to do the right thing. It'd be better if it mostly
"just worked" when app code does the simple thing.
### NAT piercing (ICE/STUN/TURN)
The Steamworks code supports a custom protocol for relaying packets through our
network of relays and on our backbone. At this time the opensource code does
network of relays and on our backbone. At this time the open-source code does
not have any support for piercing NAT or relaying packets. But since the
Steamworks code already has those concepts, it should be pretty easy to add
support for this. You'd still be responsible for running the STUN/TURN servers
@@ -282,6 +282,6 @@ and doing the rendezvous/signalling, but the code could use them.
### Non-connection-oriented interface
The Steam version has ISteamMessages, which is a UDP-like interface. Messages
are addressed by peer identity, not connection handle. (Both reliable and
unreliable messages are still supported.) We should open- source this API,
unreliable messages are still supported.) We should open-source this API,
too. Previously it was only for P2P, but we've found that it's useful for
porting UDP-based code.