Re: [Rails-devel] Another Bug I have found, and worked out a fix for

[Erik V. <eri...@hc...>]

Hi Jean,
 
The point is, that several class names are configurable. For instance, the
default operating round class is OperatingRound, but several games use more
specialized subclasses, with names like OperatingRound_18xx. Examples are
18AL and 18EU; see the <OperatingRound> tags in the Games.xml files of these
games.
 
These classes (and most other Round subclasses) are dynamically instantiated
in method createRound() of class GameManager, by calling the newInstance()
method of a Class object for the particular class to be created. The
newInstance() method requires a parameterless constructor, like
OperatingRound(). So we can only use such constructors; constructors that
take parameters are useless for these classes. 
 
(I think there are ways to create newInstance methods that take parameters
as well, but I didn't find it worth while to sort out how to jump through
those hoops, as we already had a simple solution).
 
Parameterless constructors can obviously only initialize fixed/default
values, nothing that is variable (except through calling class methods, but
we want to get away from class methods). That means that all further
initialization must be done by calling a non-constructor method; in this
case setGameManager().
 
I hope this helps.
Erik.


  _____  

From: Jean Michalski (Europe) [mailto:Jea...@eu...] 
Sent: Sunday 07 December 2008 09:46
To: Development list for Rails: an 18xx game
Subject: Re: [Rails-devel] Another Bug I have found, and worked out a fix
for


Hi Mark, Erik, everyone,
 
Just a small note to say I have followed the discussion, and without any
pretention to say I understand the gritty details, Erik says that the
classes in question are being instantiated "dynamically", e.g. in a way such
that constructors would be inappropriate.  So he says he would be happier to
leave the empty constructors and use the setGameManager() or any other
configuration method.
 
Erik, would you be so kind as pointing out very pragmatically to one
specific such case?  I think it might enlighten at least myself on the way
the architecture has been thought out and built.  This would have all of us
looking into the same direction (or question the direction, but this would
certainly not come from me).
 
Thank you,
 
Jean (John in French) Michalski


  _____  

From: Mark Smith [mailto:mar...@gm...] 
Sent: 05 December 2008 23:43
To: Development list for Rails: an 18xx game
Subject: Re: [Rails-devel] Another Bug I have found, and worked out a fix
for


OK, if you feel that parametrized constructors is a step backwards, I will
comply with your request. I don't agree, but I won't argue about it any
more.

Mark