Aren't we making a mountain out of a mole hill here.
For GTP to be successful, it needs to be better than both GMP and IGS protocol. We do this by keeping it simple _and_ complete. I already think GTP is simple - it's in text base, request/response protocol, and sits on a reliable connection. Now to make it complete, we need to at least implementing everything that GMP has to offer - that includes undo. And implement enough that would make GUI clients useful to users.
I agree with William (and Alan), that we should define which commands need to be implement for each purpose (eg. Engine, Tournament Server). So a developer only has to implement what is necessary for his goal or purpose. This will keep the GTP command set from become to unwheeldly.
Anyway, right now I've been focusing on documenting the GTP command set. I hope to have it available in a few days for review.
Phil
----- Original Message ----- From: "William Harold Newman" william.newman@airmail.net To: gtp@lists.lysator.liu.se Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 4:12 PM Subject: Re: [gtp] GTP Goals, ver. 3
On Wed, Aug 15, 2001 at 05:44:17PM -0400, Don Dailey wrote:
Both GMP and IGS protocol support undo. How many programs actually
use
it?
What user interface is complete without undo?
Which is more important, to standardize a protocol which implements a complete user interface, or to standardize a protocol which does a good job on the features that programs actually use when interfacing to other programs (including servers and multitool-things like cgoban)?
Of course, I still don't know the answer to my first question. Maybe the number of programs which use the existing 'undo' command is much larger than I realize..
--