Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 14:58:41 03/15/05
Go up one level in this thread
On March 15, 2005 at 17:02:52, F. Huber wrote: >On March 15, 2005 at 16:34:50, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On March 15, 2005 at 15:57:51, F. Huber wrote: >> >>>On March 15, 2005 at 15:43:27, Dann Corbit wrote: >>> >>>>On March 15, 2005 at 15:40:33, F. Huber wrote: >>>> >>>>>On March 15, 2005 at 13:54:46, Dann Corbit wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>The UCI protocol is flawed because it does not store the engine setup >>>>>>information. You have to communicate this stuff every time. Still, this part >>>>>>of the UCI protocol is clearly better than Winboard, because it at least is >>>>>>uniform. >>>>> >>>>>Hi Dann, >>>>> >>>>>there´s absolutely nothing flawed in the UCI protocol, at least not in your >>>>>mentioned problem of storing the engine setup! >>>>> >>>>>The reason why this ´setup storing´ can´t be found anywhere in the UCI protocol, >>>>>is simply that this is either the task of the GUI _or_ the engine itself - >>>>>whoever wants to implement this! >>>>> >>>>>Do you need examples? >>>> >>>>Yes, by all means. >>>> >>>>>Well, e.g. Arena actually stores _every_ engine option in the registry! >>>> >>>>And it should be in a database. >>> >>>Is the registry no database? >> >>Not really. And it does not exist for UNIX and the MAC (or any other platform). >> >>>>>And e.g. ChestUCI has its own INI-file, where it also stores all of its >>>>>settings (moreover you can even specify the ´behaviour´ of this INI-file >>>>>in 3 different ways with a special commandline parameter for ChestUCI)! >>>> >>>>And what a horrible place to do it. >>> >>>Again, is a INI-file no database? >>>(BTW, the user has absolutely nothing to do with ChestUCI´s INI-file!) >>> >>>This time you´re really speaking _nonsense_! :-( >> >>An ini file is not a database. >>It is the wrong place to store these parameters. >>Let me repeat, I have literally hundreds of chess engines. >>Will I want to edit an ini file for each and every revision of each and every >>engine? >> >>Storing things in ini files (where each ini file is different) is bad, bad, bad. >> >>And did I mention bad? >> >>It is annoying, unhelpful, harmful, irritating, and awful. >> >>It belongs in a consistent database. Anything else is just plain wrong. > >Well I see: either you _don´t_ get the point, or you don´t _want_ to get it! > >Did I say anywhere, that the _user_ should _edit_ these INI files at all? NO! > >Of course the user simply changes all engine settings in a configuration window >within the chess GUI! >But if these settings are stored by the GUI or the engine - or - >if these settings are stored in a INI-file, the registry, a ´database´ (whatever >_you_ would call so) or in anything else, is completely indifferent for the >user! > >Got it now? ;-) Chess GUI one (e.g. Arena) has to do this. Chess GUI two (e.g. Jose) has to do this. Chess GUI three (e.g. Knights) has to do this. Chess GUI four (e.g. ChessBase) has to do this. Chess GUI five (e.g. ChessAssistant) has to do this. Chess GUI six (e.g. Winboard) has to do this. It it clear that it is lunacy to have to reprogram this every time? It it clear that it is too much work to get every parameter for every program correctly performed in this way? To use something besides a database is the wrong way to do it. It a database, we have consistency. An ini file will not ensure consistency. In a database, we have rules and contraints and triggers. An ini file cannot perform rules, contstraints or triggers. In a database, we have indexes. An ini file will do a sequential scan. In a database, we can create a uniform, simple interface. There is a billion dollars worth of effort to write a good database. Your ini files will never duplicate it.
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.