 |
harley
Apprentice
Joined: 05 Apr 2008
Posts: 121
|
 Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 3:31 am
Major Props
|
Can I just say the GMCP addition makes area exits and such 1000% easier to map.
|
|
|
|
|
GeneralStonewall
Magician
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
Posts: 364
Location: USA
|
Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 6:51 am
|
GMCP is definitely one of the greatest additions to mudding ever conceived. Much appreciation for Zugg's and other's work on it.
|
|
|
|
|
Rorso
Wizard
Joined: 14 Oct 2000
Posts: 1368
|
Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 9:49 am
|
| GeneralStonewall wrote: |
| GMCP is definitely one of the greatest additions to mudding ever conceived. Much appreciation for Zugg's and other's work on it. |
You actually could do the same things using MXP. Zugg Software made that protocol more than 7 years ago, and unlike GMCP it has support for formatted text like clickable URLs and frames as well as pictures. The problem with MXP was(I think?) that the big popular MUDs didn't add support for it for some reason.
GMCP is easier to parse than MXP and seems to have more standard ways of sending data. Hopefully some more open specification of it is made. |
|
|
|
|
Zugg
MASTER
Joined: 25 Sep 2000
Posts: 23379
Location: Colorado, USA
|
Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 4:49 pm
|
Rorso: Actually not. What was missing in the MXP stuff was support for the room *number*. Nobody other than zMUD/CMUD ever supported the mapping tags in MXP, and even CMUD only started supporting sending the room number via MXP pretty recently. GMCP is just a much cleaner way to send that data, and it's support for the room number "out of the box" is what makes all of this work better.
GMCP and MXP are really for two completely different purposes. MXP is for "markup" (like colors, hyperlinks, etc) and GMCP is for sending background data of any type between the client and server. MXP data was never intended to be "hidden"...it was intended to be displayed markup. Whereas GMCP data was designed to be outside of the session and could not be used for markup purposes.
So both protocols are good and useful.
In any case, thanks for the comments and tell your friends. Maybe this will get more of them to finally abandon zMUD and start using CMUD instead. |
|
|
|
|
Rorso
Wizard
Joined: 14 Oct 2000
Posts: 1368
|
Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 6:53 pm
|
| Zugg wrote: |
Rorso: Actually not. What was missing in the MXP stuff was support for the room *number*. Nobody other than zMUD/CMUD ever supported the mapping tags in MXP, and even CMUD only started supporting sending the room number via MXP pretty recently. GMCP is just a much cleaner way to send that data, and it's support for the room number "out of the box" is what makes all of this work better.
|
I noticed on Aardwolf that the MUD doesn't send for example the room descriptions so I guess the client still has to figure out where the description is?
| Quote: |
GMCP and MXP are really for two completely different purposes. MXP is for "markup" (like colors, hyperlinks, etc) and GMCP is for sending background data of any type between the client and server. MXP data was never intended to be "hidden"...it was intended to be displayed markup. Whereas GMCP data was designed to be outside of the session and could not be used for markup purposes.
|
Well the VAR-tag in MXP supports invisible variable assignments. I think the fact GMCP is so easy to write a parser for really is one of the main benefits. |
|
|
|
|
Zugg
MASTER
Joined: 25 Sep 2000
Posts: 23379
Location: Colorado, USA
|
Posted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 7:55 pm
|
| Quote: |
| so I guess the client still has to figure out where the description is? |
That's correct, although CMUD won't do this for you automatically, you'll need to figure out the descriptions and #tag them somehow. Most MUDs decided that sending room descriptions via GMCP was too much data. I lobbied for a way to send the description via GMCP and then use a "Render" message to have the client echo it to the main window so the MUD wasn't sending the desc data twice, but I was overruled on mudstandards.org and told that such an idea was worthless. Guess it was a good idea after all, but it's too late now.
| Quote: |
| Well the VAR-tag in MXP supports invisible variable assignments. |
Yeah, but nobody other than zMUD/CMUD implemented that either. I added a lot of optional stuff like this to MXP that would have been better served by something like GMCP at the time. I was trying to make MXP do more than most MUDs wanted it to.
| Quote: |
| I think the fact GMCP is so easy to write a parser for really is one of the main benefits. |
Yes, I completely agree. Which is funny because there was so much whining on the mudstandards forum about how hard json was going to be. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
