Build 14: New code for injecting keystrokes

[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.

[TheFallenOne]

Exactly. That's the problem. In general, it seems to be impossible to know which file is newer because the files have timestamps based on clocks in different computers.

I think probably the only way to do this is with a central repository for the info which means Mojo would no longer be 100% peer to peer. I'd like to hold on to peer to peer as a "100% design invariant" for the life of the project, if that's possible.

This problem has already arisen with mouseover and I handled it by creating entirely separate settings on each PC. I'm inclined to think the solution lies in that direction.

The basic idea would be, each computer is the master repository for settings that were created on that computer. As a result, each Mojo could have different settings.

It would be easier for me if each computer is the master repository for its own instances of WoW, but then maybe it starts to get complicated for the user.

Another option (food for thought):

Settings are saved with a version #, starting at 0, incremented by 1 every time the file is updated. The version number is also appended with a unique identifier specifying which computer the settings came from (maybe a MAC ID, some kind of product ID, or something similar).

When multiple computers connect, they compare version stamps. Say we have C1 and C2 connecting to each other. C1 has a settings file with version stamp as, say... 18-C1, and C2 has a settings file with version 16-C1. This indicates that C2 has previously received settings from C1, and automatically updates to 18-C1 from C1.

Now, if you update the settings on C2, they would be saved with the new version stamp 19-C2. This would be sent along with the last NON-C2 version stamp that the settings were updated from, and C1 would look at the incoming stamps, see that C2 has been updated from 18-C1 (which is C1's current version and the last non-C2 version stamp that was used) to 19-C2, and so it determines it should update too (since it's on 18-C1), and now saves it's version stamp as 19-C2.

Now for the part where things might get a little less straightforward... Both computers are on 26-C1, and you disconnect both computers. You do an update on both C1 and C2, and then reconnect them. Version stamps are compared, and since both have been updated independently, a "fork" is created in the settings tree. A dialog pops up, notifying the user that the settings from both of them do not match, and allowing them to choose whether to use the settings from C1, settings from C2, or leave them in a forked state.


I'm running on very little sleep, so I apologize if some of this is a little unintelligible. Anyways, just some food for thought, maybe you'll get some ideas from it.


EDIT: I also actually rather like the idea of "pushing" settings from one Mojo to the others (mentioned by Aragent above), ALA how Jamba handles things. I believe that would work rather nicely.

[Freddie]

I would just make it click via tooltip or something that information shown for other mojo's is INFORMATIONAL ONLY, and that each mojo must be configured independently.

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?

[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..

[Freddie]

Another option (food for thought):

Settings are saved with a version #, starting at 0, incremented by 1 every time the file is updated. The version number is also appended with a unique identifier specifying which computer the settings came from (maybe a MAC ID, some kind of product ID, or something similar).

When multiple computers connect, they compare version stamps. Say we have C1 and C2 connecting to each other. C1 has a settings file with version stamp as, say... 18-C1, and C2 has a settings file with version 16-C1. This indicates that C2 has previously received settings from C1, and automatically updates to 18-C1 from C1.

Now, if you update the settings on C2, they would be saved with the new version stamp 19-C2. This would be sent along with the last NON-C2 version stamp that the settings were updated from, and C1 would look at the incoming stamps, see that C2 has been updated from 18-C1 (which is C1's current version and the last non-C2 version stamp that was used) to 19-C2, and so it determines it should update too (since it's on 18-C1), and now saves it's version stamp as 19-C2.

Now for the part where things might get a little less straightforward... Both computers are on 26-C1, and you disconnect both computers. You do an update on both C1 and C2, and then reconnect them. Version stamps are compared, and since both have been updated independently, a "fork" is created in the settings tree. A dialog pops up, notifying the user that the settings from both of them do not match, and allowing them to choose whether to use the settings from C1, settings from C2, or leave them in a forked state.

Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to me there are basically two main cases. In one case, the Mojos are running simultaneously and talking to each other. In that situation, whenever you change one Mojo, it tells the others. All changes immediately propagate. There's no need for version numbers or anything else.

The second case is what you call "less straightforward." It occurs when you change Mojo A while it's not talking to Mojo B, and then you change Mojo B while it's not talking to Mojo A. When they find themselves in communication again, they have no way to know which one was updated more recently.

If the first case doesn't require a solution, and your solution doesn't solve the second problem, what is it useful for?

Those two cases aren't logically exclusive so there must be other circumstances, but I'm having trouble getting a sense of how common they would be. Can you give me an example where version numbers would help?

EDIT: I also actually rather like the idea of "pushing" settings from one Mojo to the others (mentioned by Aragent above), ALA how Jamba handles things. I believe that would work rather nicely.

I'll look into Jamba. Thanks for suggesting it.

[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."

[rocnroll]

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

94.786754321% to be precise Captain Fursphere.

[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.