Conversation
… to BlockPacketController#createPacket(...)
|
As I have already mentioned in #349 I will create a new PR for Anti-Xray 2.0 soon. This is still the old implementation with the locks just in case that we come back to it again. |
|
Any update on Anti-Xray 2.0? :o |
|
Any news? |
| + this.ready = ready; | ||
| + } | ||
| + | ||
| + public void setWrittenChunkSections(int writtenChunkSections) { // Used to set this.c to the return value of this.a(PacketDataSerializer packetdataserializer, Chunk chunk, boolean flag, int i, Chunk[] nearbyChunks) in asynchronous mode |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This needs to be an obfhelper defined on the same line as the variable c (to ensure it conflicts on updates)
| } | ||
|
|
||
| + // Paper start - Anti-Xray - notify from 1.8 | ||
| + public void notify(BlockPosition blockposition) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
All obfuscated accesses here need obf helpers
|
When is this gonna be in paper? :) |
|
@Fonzee9 when the changes we have requested are performed and we are happy with the state of the PR. author has stated intent to do another pass at it as a "2.0". We've not heard anything since. It's not going to be pulled in its current state. |
|
Any update to this? |
|
I am sorry that I didn't reply for a long time. I was busy at university and with lots of other stuff so that I couldn't work on Anti-Xray anymore. As I have already mentioned in the IRC I have decided to continue working on Anti-Xray 2.0 and I have good news. It begins to take shape and I plan to do the first tests in a few days. Update: Today I did the above announced tests and after some bug fixing everything worked fine so far. The new implementation is designed so that the obfuscation is thread safe even without such locks like in Anti-Xray 1.0. There are still some parts to implement (e.g. the configuration part, the block updates and the implementation of the asynchronous thread) but most of the work is done. I plan to PR in a few days. Update: #858 |
|
Closing, discussion should move to 858, linked above. |
7 participants
#349