Author: Volker Böhm
Date: 06:44:20 12/15/04
Go up one level in this thread
Hi Uri, I like the "controller"-model most. In Practice Spike has a Winboard-Class that is the controller. The Chess-Player itself doesn´t know anything about winboard but only add´s an interface for the winboard-class. If Spike gets a winboard command, the winboard - class receives it and decides what to do. Example: If it receives a "go" command it will send call "IterativeSearch" of the "PonderSearch" Class. If it receives a stop it will call "Stop" of the "PonderSearch" Class. The UCI-Interface uses exactly the same interface of "PonderSearch". The PonderSearch Class is statefull (not a good design but easy to implement) thus it knows about the last moves. Spike breaks the rule when printing informations. PonderSearch knows about the format the UCI or Winboard Info-Interface. This is not a good design. A callback interface of Winboard is a better design but more compicated to implement. Here we have choosen the easier design, not the more clear one. To implement this, "PonderSearch" has a flag for "Winboard" or "UCI" that is set by the Winboard class - the drawback of this design. Greetings Volker
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.