Regarding use GTP for the CGOS communication protocol: At one point I actually seriously considered using GTP as the communication protocol for CGOS. It seemed rather cool that it might be possible to hook up a program directly without needing a separate client. It seems like we may have even discussed it on this group. I did discuss this with the gogui people I believe.
A couple of issues made me change my mind. One of them is exactly what Álvaro mentions, the authentication issue. There is nothing in the GTP protocol to cover this and it seemed to be outside the scope of the protocol. You could separate authentication and consider it just a separate step in the process, but this is certainly no simplification. The other issue is that GTP is normally done over pipes, not sockets. It doesn't really matter how you send and receive the messages of course, but it certainly doesn't make most programs immediately usable. It's easy enough in unix based systems using unix tools but at this point you already using an external program anyway. A third issue is that I wanted the flexibility to add things not covered by GTP, such as informational messages. I did not want to require people to constantly be modifying their GTP implementations to accommodate CGOS. A fourth issue is that wanted to minimize the number of messages passing back and forth. So the CGOS protocol is less verbose in that sense. If I stayed with strict GTP I would be sending a more tiny message back and forth. Every few months, I get a private email asking why I didn't use GTP. I think this is the first one sent to the computer-go list. Each time the person believes he is the first to think of the idea. - Don Álvaro Begué wrote: > On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 4:22 PM, Raymond Wold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > >> Don Dailey wrote: >> >>> No. cgos does not use GTP protocol for communicating with server. >>> Also, I have eventual plans to extend what is communicated to the >>> client and this is not compatible with the current GTP set. >>> >> The more you add as requirements on the client side, the more those bot >> coders who can't or don't want to run third party interface code will >> have to implement. >> >> Christoph Birk wrote: >> >>> That's similar to what I did. I implemented the CGOS protocol >>> directly into my Go-programm. It's very straight forward and I don't >>> have to run a separate client that way. >>> >>> Christoph >>> >> It would be a lot more straight forward if there was just /one/ protocol >> to implement. But I guess it's true what they say about standards being >> nice. >> > > > In case anyone didn't understand this, I think Don is talking about an old > joke said: "Standards are great, that's why everyone has one." > > I like the current scheme where a little program talks GTP to the engine and > then something else (I don't care what) to the server. It would be better if > the little client were written in Perl (there used to be a Perl version but > I don't know if it's up to date) so I wouldn't have to install another > interpreter (TCL). > > Álvaro. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > computer-go mailing list > computer-go@computer-go.org > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
