[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  
> work.

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.

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





More information about the Standards mailing list