[Standards-JIG] New version of chess game protocol
Robert B Quattlebaum, Jr.
darco at deepdarc.com
Mon Oct 23 21:26:41 UTC 2006
On Oct 18, 2006, at 4:19 PM, Richard Dobson wrote:
>>> Sure, and thats fine for some games like chess and checkers, but
>>> as detailed above, not all.
>> Do you think it could be done with EMUC (as I mentioned in other
>> thread)? The MUC behaviour could be modified and the logic could be
>> inserted into it somehow more directly.
> It could be yes, just like we could modify MUC to remotely control
> a coke machine if we wanted to build the extensions ontop of it to
> do so, the question is whether we should, IMO the sort of games im
> talking about that need the game server component need to do things
> that are different enough to warrant them being in a separate
> component (i.e. I think not sharing the full game state with all
> the players, i.e. broadcasting it via the MUC room, is different
> enough that its outside the intended purpose for it, IMO MUC should
> only be used for protocols where everything that is going to the
> room is sent to all players i.e. broadcast, not protocols that need
> to send different states to each player), like like how workgroups
I just wanted to make it clear that on this point I agree with you.
There are some games that in order for them to work at all will need
a private game state managed by a third party. In such a case, I
think a game server is quite appropriate.
I just don't want chess, checkers, and other games without a private
state to be forced to use a game server (none of which currently
exist, btw) when they inherently don't need to.
Jabber: darco at deepdarc.com
eMail: darco at deepdarc.com
More information about the Standards