Re: Web for MOO?

• Date: Wed, 1 Nov 1995 16:36:59 PST
• From:
  Jay Carlson <nop@k2.ccs.neu.edu>
• cc: moo-cows@parc.xerox.com
• Content-Length: 2613
• Content-Type: text
• In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 01 Nov 95 09:40:21 PST." <9511011740.AA25564@tees.elsevier.co.uk>

>> At 01:49 PM 10/31/95 PST, you wrote:
>> >However, it implements its own hack of a protocol for using html and other
>> >items, rather than using any number of pleothora of protocols available
>> >(such as MCP).
>> 
>> >Frankly, I think chaco/pueblo would get further if they would not require
>> >you to do netscap-isms like 'Enhanced for Pueblo/1.3' in the motd.
>> 
>> Yeah, that opening "#$#mcp version: 1.0" handshake for MCP is much less
>>  intrusive.

> Firstly, the #$#mcp ... only happens if you've already determined that
> your client is able to handle mcp using client options.  MOO remembers
> your client's state and responds to you the next time you connect
> assuming that things haven't changed.

Well, right now on JHM, this is hardwired.  Erik has been arguing hard
for it to work the way you described though.  

There isn't a handshake defined in the existing MCP documentation;
clients and servers know they can talk by private convention (eg, "MCP
Enabled" in your client's world file and a @client-option on the
server.)  In my draft 2.0 spec (sitting on my desk, don't give me any
crap about this right now) this remains as an option, as well as
something like what JHM does.  A more interesting option is to have a
non-intrusive handshake starter, like a line consisting solely of 37
space characters.

> If you grep through JHCore you'll find a #$#client-options (or some
> similar foo) which is sitting there waiting for the client to be first
> to say what sorts of transactions it'd like to handle.

Right; the problem with #$#client-options is that it mixes up a
particular client's ability to understand a protocol with a user's
desire to USE that ability.  As my draft stands, negotiation only
addresses capability, leaving the other part up for further
experimentation.

>> At least Pueblo actually *wrote* a featureful multimedia client for major
>>  home platforms rather than yammering at people to "get Linux" so they can
>>  run the client for their "perfect protocol".

You're probably quoting me about "get Linux" but I don't think
anyone's claimed that MCP is a "perfect protocol".  Also, I don't
feel a strong need to defend building my experimental tools on the
platform I'm comfortable with.

> I understand that tk/tcl will be 'out' for PC/MAc platforms shortly,

Out in beta.  http://www.smli.com/research/tcl

> this has pretty major implications for people 'playing' with tk*
> clients.  Suddenly the potential userbase is enourmous, people make
> vast fortunes, castled empires rise and fall on the distant deserts of
> the 2nd moon, er, wait...

Er, wait...

• Re: Web for MOO?
• From: Andrew Wilson <andrew@tees.elsevier.co.uk>

• Prev: Re: Web for MOO?
• Next: Re: Web for MOO?
• Index: MOO-cows
• Thread: MOO-cows