[Standards-JIG] New version of chess game protocol

Robert B Quattlebaum, Jr. darco at deepdarc.com
Wed Oct 18 19:30:29 UTC 2006

On Oct 5, 2006, at 6:26 AM, Michal vorner Vaner wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 11:02:08AM -0700, Robert B Quattlebaum, Jr.  
> wrote:
>> On Sep 14, 2006, at 11:04 AM, Michal vorner Vaner wrote:
>> * I disagree with the use of the 'gid' and 'sid' attributes. There is
>> already a tag for this purpose: <thread>. This will allow clients/
>> servers to recognize that all messages in that game are related--even
>> if it doesn't understand that it is a chess game. Support for the
>> <thread> tag should be mandatory.
> But there are 2 types of this. Maye the thread would be the same as  
> sid,
> but gid is between many people.

Why would the <thread> stanza not be appropriate in all cases? I'm  
not quite sure what the use case intention of the 'gid' attribute was  
in the first place.

>> * I would not consider the receipt of an unavailable presence as an
>> automatic forfeit. What if I get temporarily disconnected?
> But what if you get really disconnected? Will the session stuck here
> forever?

The client should pause the game until the other resource is again  
available. If a client sends a move in a message to another player  
but that player's client doesn't know what game it is talking about,  
perhaps an error stanza should be sent in return.

I think that a client should always assume that the game is in-play  
unless 1) the user explicitly ends a game, or 2) the client receives  
a notification from the other client that the game is over.

>> * For cases where there are spectators, why not use a MUC room? We
>> should try to take advantage of such facilities as much as possible.
>> It will make client implementation of this protocol more simple, and
>> thus more people will implement it. It is also more scalable for
>> games with large numbers of spectators.
> Hm, maybe because MUC does not support some things (iqs) and alters  
> it.

I'm not sure what you mean by "alters it".

MUC does not seem to explicitly define the forwarding of IQs (perhaps  
it should specify it as an optional part of the spec), but it seems  
that some implementations do this anyway(I noticed icons working in  
anonymous MUC rooms with pandion). Either way, I don't think that the  
forwarding of <iq> stanzas is a absolute requirement for this protocol.

Robert Quattlebaum
Jabber: darco at deepdarc.com
eMail:  darco at deepdarc.com
www:    http://www.deepdarc.com/

More information about the Standards mailing list