Receiving packets

[BaussHacker]

When I receive a packet I do something like this:

        public static void NewPacket(SocketClient Client, byte[] Packet)
        {
                        if (Kernel.SafePacket(Client, Packet))
                        {
                        //Handle
                        }
            }

        public static bool SafePacket(SocketClient Client, byte[] Packet)
        {
            if (Client == null || Packet == null)
                return false;

            return (Packet.Length > 0 && Packet.Length <= MaxPacketSize);
        }

But would it take more resources or it wouldn't matter, if so is there other ways that's better?

[12tails]

well... other thing you could do is:

        public static bool SafePacket(SocketClient Client, byte[] Packet)
        {
            if (Client == null || Packet == null)
                return false;

            if (Packet.Length > 0 && Packet.Length <= MaxPacketSize);
            {
                Proccess(Client, Packet);
                return true;
            }
            else return false;
        }
             //----------------------------------

            static void Proccess(SocketClient Client, byte[] Packet)
            {
                        //Handle
            }

[BaussHacker]

Originally Posted by 12tails

well... other thing you could do is:

        public static bool SafePacket(SocketClient Client, byte[] Packet)
        {
            if (Client == null || Packet == null)
                return false;

            if (Packet.Length > 0 && Packet.Length <= MaxPacketSize);
            {
                Proccess(Client, Packet);
                return true;
            }
            else return false;
        }
             //----------------------------------

            static void Proccess(SocketClient Client, byte[] Packet)
            {
                        //Handle
            }

Would do no difference xD

[_tao4229_]

doesn't matter in the least (maybe if you're worrying about 100s of cpu cycles, if so you shouldn't be using C#), you've got bigger problems to worry about.

[BaussHacker]

Originally Posted by _tao4229_

doesn't matter in the least (maybe if you're worrying about 100s of cpu cycles, if so you shouldn't be using C#), you've got bigger problems to worry about.

The bigger problems is? xD

[Spirited]

Shouldn't your packet splitter be doing this?
*if you have one. There are other ways of splitting packets.

Look at Kibou if you're interested. I removed it recently because of a Turk that tried releasing it. If you need it, just msn me or comment on my blog.

[BaussHacker]

Originally Posted by Fаng

Shouldn't your packet splitter be doing this?
*if you have one. There are other ways of splitting packets.

Look at Kibou if you're interested. I removed it recently because of a Turk that tried releasing it. If you need it, just msn me or comment on my blog.

Not using a packetsplitter. And sure I would like to take a look, thanks ^^

[Arco.]

Just take a look at Kibou, Kanji. They are perfect.

[Spirited]

Originally Posted by Arco.

Just take a look at Kibou, Kanji. They are perfect.

.-. There's no such thing has "perfect"...
And I've learned a lot since Kibou and Kanji.

[Yup Stigs]

My long, lost brother is back.

/ontopic

" " //Kibou has a great example