how did you guys realize configuration input for the server application?
Did you generate an own GUI (like proposed by Camerlengo&Monkhouse) or did you just rely on the command line, because it cannot be guaranteed,
that GUI is working (for instance on UNIX systems without a X-Server)?
I created a ServerWindow (where you can enter configuration settings and where you can stop the serverà , Roberto just showed a dialog for configuration settings and the dialog disappears and the server keeps running without GUI.
But, you know... I was thinking... Roel opted for showing a window after the server is running, so the user can stop it by clicking a button. In my case, the server is stopped by pressing Ctrl + C on the console. Roel's score in the GUI criteria was 40. Do you guys think that maybe this has something to do? I mean, building a window so the user can stop the server by clicking a button can help getting a better score in the GUI criteria?
... having a server window, which does not disappear is actually not a bad idea.
Besides having a button to stop the server you can do some other nice stuff (all not required by the assignment, however),
for instance displaying a table with the ip's of all clients currently connected to the server etc. ...
But seriously I think this is the better approach,
because if you offer a GUI for the server to set configurations you should also offer a GUI to stop the server and not require the user
to use keystrokes on the console.
This would be a break in user interface conformity.
This is why Roel got 40 points in the GUI category maybe.
Andy Jung wrote:This is why Roel got 40 points in the GUI category maybe.
I guess I got the 40 points because it was a simple, easy-to-extend and highly restrictive user interface which offers the user a consistent experience during the complete application. Besides that the code is easy understandable and maintainable, even by a junior developer. I did not use any icons or other fancy stuff.
That would be all the pros of my GUI and I can't think of a con (besides it looks a bit "old" and outdated)