Build 14: New code for injecting keystrokes

[Fursphere]

How would you deal, for example, with setting afinity for a particular instance of WoW?

Let's say that WoW runs on PC 3.

Can you set that option for that WoW on PC 2?

How can you be sure that PC 2 and 3 are identical hardware? (you can't). If you really want a central "launch" WoW - I would configure it like this.

Make it so each "mojo" can see every other mojo's running copies of WoW. (And SAVE them for future refernce).

Whenever you want to launch mulitple wow's on seperate PCs, just highlight them all (ctrl click?) and "launch" them.

that way any copy of mojo can luanch another copy of WoW on another machine, provided mojo is runnin there already.

This would keep your "no master no slave" setup.

as far as affinity goes, you'll maybe.. right click each wow config and set it there? remote mojo config from another mojo? have it save on the local mojo for each wow?

And I STRONGLY advise against all this "pushing / pulling" config nonsense. If you do that, you'll basically be moving to the master / slave setup. I like the concept that there is no master or slave.

[Freddie]

How can you be sure that PC 2 and 3 are identical hardware? (you can't).

They wouldn't need identical hardware. The only hardware that would be taken into account is the PC that the program is going to run on. The PC you're typing on wouldn't matter. (I'm not saying I'm going to do this. I was only asking what you thought about it.)

If you really want a central "launch" WoW - I would configure it like this.

Make it so each "mojo" can see every other mojo's running copies of WoW. (And SAVE them for future refernce).

Whenever you want to launch mulitple wow's on seperate PCs, just highlight them all (ctrl click?) and "launch" them.

that way any copy of mojo can luanch another copy of WoW on another machine, provided mojo is runnin there already.

This would keep your "no master no slave" setup.

I've been thinking pretty much the same thing with one difference. I don't think there's any reason to save the info on other PCs because the other PCs can only use the info when they are connected to the installation PC, and if they are connected, they can just read the info in real time across the network from the installation PC.

And I STRONGLY advise against all this "pushing / pulling" config nonsense. If you do that, you'll basically be moving to the master / slave setup. I like the concept that there is no master or slave.

I'm glad you like that concept. I like it too.

But I don't think pushing configs is master/slave. Unless I misunderstood it just means "copy settings from one PC to another."

[ElectronDF]

I agree with the info (show only) for other computers. I expect 80% of boxers use 1 computer. I also expect 99% of boxers to not change their setup (start of WOW) once it works. So it shouldn't have to be changed very often and they can do it from the other Mojos.

[Fursphere]

I expect 80% of boxers use 1 computer.

I'd wager that this number is much closer to 95%

[rocnroll]

I'd wager that this number is much closer to 95%

94.786754321% to be precise Captain Fursphere.

[Aragent]

Could we not setup an additional tab like we have for wow and toons, for other computers mojo network paths.

we can even make it and Advanced setting to maintain ease of use for the multitude, and have a button to allow us to push updated info to our other computers Mojo.

Then we take the respocability off Mojo of having to remember which Mojo was last updated, and put it on the User.
we can even give an option to push the data to pc's even if the mojo was off, but the PC was still on the network.

Just a thought.

[Freddie]

Could we not setup an additional tab like we have for wow and toons, for other computers mojo network paths.

What would that tab do? I don't understand.

we can even make it and Advanced setting to maintain ease of use for the multitude, and have a button to allow us to push updated info to our other computers Mojo. Then we take the respocability off Mojo of having to remember which Mojo was last updated, and put it on the User.

That sounds like a good idea, but I'm not sure if it really takes any responsibility off Mojo. As the config screens develop, people will use them and we'll all have a better idea of the issues..

[Aragent]

What would that tab do? I don't understand.

Sorry it took so long to get back to this question Lost my main HD the other day and had to wait for its replacement to come in.

However what I envisioned for this tab would do is a place to configure know mojo paths, similar to how the wow tab works to know where the know wows are.

then when we pushed the mojo configuration files it would use these to know where to push the settings.

This would not be a master/slave becouse these settings could be done from any Mojo and pushed to any other so long as it the other mojos were configured in the Mojo tab.

example in a 3 machine environment (provided you had all 3 configured on all 3 machines)
1 could push to 2&3
2 could push to 1&3
3 could push to 1&3

[Freddie]

However what I envisioned for this tab would do is a place to configure know mojo paths, similar to how the wow tab works to know where the know wows are.

I misread this. I'm going to write a new reply.

[Freddie]

what I envisioned for this tab would do is a place to configure know mojo paths, similar to how the wow tab works to know where the know wows are.

Each Mojo already knows about the others. They find each other automatically. The Computers tab shows other Mojos. It's called "Computers" instead of "Mojos" because I thought the name "Mojos" would be confusing in this context.

Mojos don't remember anything about each other. Each Mojo only knows about another while the other is running and they are connected. It's done this way because it guarantees that every Mojo's info about the others is correct. By designing it this way, a whole class of errors is prevented.

This would not be a master/slave becouse these settings could be done from any Mojo and pushed to any other...

I agree.

By the way, in order to copy info from a local PC to a remote PC, the local Mojo needs the IP address and/or hostname of the remote Mojo, not the pathname. The local Mojo needs to ask the remote Mojo to save the settings, and it does this by sending info over a socket connection, not by doing anything with the remote PC's hard disk.

There are two reasons why a Mojo doesn't mess with the hard disk on a another computer.

1. The OS on the PC where the hard disk is located may not allow another PC's Mojo to read or write the file. (Mojo runs with admin privileges but they only apply to the PC where that instance of Mojo is running.)

2. If more than one Mojo could write to the same file, the file could become corrupted or out of sync with other data.