RE: [Rails-devel] Granular model/view

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

> >> Looking a bit more at the code... ok, I see how you're 
> >> implementing it. Now it makes a bit more sense.
> >> 
> >> So, what's the difference between Cash and Money?
> 
> >Nothing.
>  
> 
> We should probably keep one and delete the other. ;-)

Ah, now I understand the confusion.
I had renamed MoneyModel to CashModel, but I see that
the removal of MoneyModel was not committed. Done now.

> >> Worth doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense to me. It's 
> >> not storing any information of its own, but is instead 
> >> calling methods in Player.  So, if this information isn't 
> >> something that we can abstract out, why should we make things 
> >> more complicated by making a new Class?
> 
> >To fit into the generic way that the new Field class updates itself:
> >via the toString() method of any ModelObject subclass.
>  
> 
> Ah ha.  That makes lots of sense. Very good.

I agree with you that the number of ModelObject classes
is growing a bit large, and more will come. I will
certainly consider all this again when I'm revisiting this subject.

> >> In the end, Cash and Trains make sense to me. Price seems 
> >> like it could extend from Cash, because a Price is just an 
> >> amount of Cash. The others don't really look like we need them. 
> 
> >No, Price embeds a StockSpace, Cash embeds an int.
> >I could probably find a way to merge these classes,
> >by representing price by an int as well as a StockSpace.
> >But that would require extra update code in PublicCompany,
> >so it does not really reduce complexity to me.
> 
> 
> Would it make sense for Price to extend from Cash instead of 
> from ModelObject?  Would the inherited methods add any value?

No, but coming to think of it: if we let StockSpace extend from
ModelObject, we would probably not need the extra PriceModel.
Sounds good.

Erik.