mirror of
				https://github.com/Mikaela/Limnoria.git
				synced 2025-10-30 23:27:24 +01:00 
			
		
		
		
	
		
			
				
	
	
		
			69 lines
		
	
	
		
			4.3 KiB
		
	
	
	
		
			Plaintext
		
	
	
	
	
	
			
		
		
	
	
			69 lines
		
	
	
		
			4.3 KiB
		
	
	
	
		
			Plaintext
		
	
	
	
	
	
| Ok, some some explanation of the capabilities system is probably in order. 
 | |
| With most IRC bots (including the ones I've written myself prior to this one)
 | |
| "what a user can do" is set in one of two ways.  On the *really* simple bots,
 | |
| each user has a numeric "level" and commands check to see if a user has a "high
 | |
| enough level" to perform some operation.  On bots that are slightly more
 | |
| complicated, users have a list of "flags" whose meanings are hardcoded, and the
 | |
| bot checks to see if a user possesses the necessary flag before performing some
 | |
| operation.  Both methods, IMO, are rather arbitrary, and force the user and the
 | |
| programmer to be unduly confined to less expressive constructs.
 | |
| 
 | |
| This bot is different.  Every user has a set of "capabilities" that is
 | |
| consulted every time they give the bot a command.  Commands, rather than
 | |
| checking for a user level of 100, or checking if the user has an "o" flag, are
 | |
| instead able to check if a user has the "owner" capability.  At this point such
 | |
| a difference might not seem revolutionary, but at least we can already tell
 | |
| that this method is self-documenting, and easier for users and developers to
 | |
| understand what's truly going on.
 | |
| 
 | |
| If that was all, well, the capability system would be "cool", but not many
 | |
| people would say it was "awesome".  But it *is* awesome!  Several things are
 | |
| happening behind the scene that make it awesome, and these are things that
 | |
| couldn't happen if the bot was using numeric userlevels or single-character
 | |
| flags.  First, whenever a user issues the bot a command, the command dispatcher
 | |
| checks to make sure the user doesn't have the "anticapability" for that
 | |
| command.  An anticapability is a capability that, instead of saying "what a
 | |
| user can do", says what a user *cannot* do.  It's formed rather simply by
 | |
| adding an exclamation point ("-") to the beginning of a capability; "rot13" is
 | |
| a capability, and "-rot13" is an anticapability.  Anyway, when a user issues
 | |
| the bot a command, perhaps "calc" or "help", the bot first checks to make sure
 | |
| the user doesn't have the "-calc" or the "-help" capabilities before even
 | |
| considering responding to the user.  So commands can be turned on or off on a
 | |
| *per user* basis, offering finegrained control not often (if at all!) seen in
 | |
| other bots.
 | |
| 
 | |
| But that's not all!  The capabilities system also supports *Channel*
 | |
| capabilities, which are capabilities that only apply to a specific channel;
 | |
| they're of the form "#channel.capability".  Whenever a user issues a command to
 | |
| the bot in a channel, the command dispatcher also checks to make sure the user
 | |
| doesn't have the anticapability for that command *in that channel*, and if the
 | |
| user does, the bot won't respond to the user in the channel.  Thus now, in
 | |
| addition to having the ability to turn individual commands on or off for an
 | |
| individual user, we can now turn commands on or off for an individual user on
 | |
| an individual channel!
 | |
| 
 | |
| So when a user "foo" sends a command "bar" to the bot on channel "#baz", first
 | |
| the bot checks to see if the user has the anticapability for the command by
 | |
| itself, "-bar".  If so, it returns right then and there, compltely ignoring the
 | |
| fact that the user issued that command to it.  If the user doesn't have that
 | |
| anticapability, then the bot checks to see if the user issued the command over
 | |
| a channel, and if so, checks to see if the user has the antichannelcapability
 | |
| for that command, "#baz.-bar".  If so, again, he returns right then and there
 | |
| and doesn't even think about responding to the bot.  If neither of these
 | |
| anticapabilities are present, then the bot just responds to the user like
 | |
| normal.
 | |
| 
 | |
| From a programmatical perspective, capabilties are easy to use and flexible.
 | |
| Any command can check if a user has any capability, even ones not thought of
 | |
| when the bot was originally written.  Commands/Callbacks can add their own
 | |
| capabilities -- it's as easy as just checking for a capability and documenting
 | |
| somewhere that a user needs that capability to do something.
 | |
| 
 | |
| From an end-user perspective, capabilities remove a lot of the mystery and
 | |
| esotery of bot control, in addition to giving the user absolutely finegrained
 | |
| control over what users are allowed to do with the bot.  Additionally, defaults
 | |
| can be set by the end-user for both individual channels and for the bot as a
 | |
| whole, letting an end-user set the policy he wants the bot to follow for users
 | |
| that haven't yet registered in his user database.
 | |
| It's really a revolution! 
 | 
