Re: [Arianne-devel] Design of the Object system

[Brian R. <bri...@ya...>]

--- Ulrich Eckhardt <doo...@kn...> wrote:
> >
> > What do you think is the best way to represent
> Name?
> >
> A string should be ok, another overload should take
> some kind of small binary 
> identifier (enum or so). The string would be when
I agree with this, but to use an enum will cause us to
hard-code all the possible objects into the system,
instead of allowing it to vary in real-time.

> [use] the binary identifier when it's a perception
> coming over the network.
I don't understand.  This doesn't pertain to
Perceptions. Please explain.

> Hmmm, if I understand you right, the
> BuilderControllers are import-filters 
> for the various source-formats, while the Builders
> are specialized for 
> building one certain Object-type, aka
> export-filters. The Factory stands in 
> the middle, managing the use of import and export
> filters.
> Right ? If so, yes I would call it Parser.

I think I should send a UML diagram.  The
ObjectFactory is not between the Builder and
BuilderController.

> I wonder if we need such high complexity. As I said
> above, I see only two 
> overloads (binary and string) for the input that
> creates an Object. 
That's not too complex (I think).  I'll send a UML
diagram soon to show that this is not really that
complex.

> About the structure of the Oject itself, I also had
> the same thought 
> (controller+attributes) but I see a big problem in
> that: either you provide a 
> generalized interface to the attributes
> (std::map<string, string> ) or the 
> controller must be matched with the actual dataset
> that it operates with. 
> The problem is that the generalized way probably
> takes lots of time and 
> memory ... at least something like map<enum,
> GenericAttrib*> should be used 
> instead.
I was thinking about this before too.  I'm thinking of
defining an object that will define this: 
class RPint {
enum type = int; 
int value = 2;
}
or for a string:

class RPstring {
enum type = string;
string value = "blah";
}

Of course we'll add more than just these. Then it
would be easy for the Controller to do work.

> However, before we try to build that, I would like
> to see the need for it. In 
> the first run, I would rather use only a few
> predefined though limited 
> Object-types and see how the game goes, and if we
> really need more 
> flexibility, we can add that later.
By "predefined" do you mean hard-coded for example:
class Sword {
private:
int damage;
int weight;
}

and

class Human {
private:
int intellegence;
int dexterity;
}

or do you mean in a template file?

> As a personal note, I must say that I once wrote The
> Perfect Flexible 
> System(tm), it got me some interesting insights but
> was never really in use 
> or useful, just cost my employer a few thousands
> ....
This is interesting.  But to me, flexibility in one of
the primary concerns of Arianne.

=====
"Teach a man to make fire, and he will be warm for a day
Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life."
        - John Hrastar

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month.
http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1