Author: Roger D Davis
Date: 22:40:25 11/06/04
Go up one level in this thread
On November 06, 2004 at 18:58:04, Pallav Nawani wrote: >Hi, > >Personally, I don't want to support any 'special features' in GUIs. This will >lead to WB protocol becoming confusing, as now every GUI has its own features >not available in the other. ChessBase8 may have a feature, chessbase9 may have >another, new, feature. So now the GUi string >gui chessbase >Dosen't cut it anymore. YOu need >gui chessbase8 >gui chessbase9 >etc. > >In other words, authors whose programs use WB2 protocol will have the task of >maintaining a small DB of GUI's within their programs. Even worse, different >GUIs will decide to use different names/strings for a same feature. This will >become messy. If some GUI has a useful new feature, it is probably better to add >it to the Winboard protocol proper, rather than leave it at the mercy of GUIs. > >Note that I don't have any objection to the gui command, I just feel that using >it as a basis to have special code for separate GUIs is not something I want to >do. > >Regards, >Pallav I have to agree with this...rather than forcing authors to maintain a separate namespace for each GUI vendor (which would be a disaster), force the vendors to depend on a single command set. Make the command set extensible, so that each vendor can still customize for its own GUI, if desired. Any commands not recognized by a particular GUI are assumed to be from a foreign vendor and simply ignored. This forces a foundation of compatibility on each vendor, and lets the various invented extensions compete among themselves for broader adoption.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.