Re: [Rails-devel] Patch for Disclaimer, UserConfirmation and new Main-Class

[brett l. <wak...@gm...>]

On 1/20/07, Rainer Muetze <rai...@we...> wrote:
>
> Here comes the first BIG patch with the implementation of a AboutDialog,
> UserConfirmation and RailsSwing as the new starting class.
>
>

Hmm...

I like a lot of this, but there are some revisions I need before I merge
this patch.

I like the About dialog.  However, I don't think the checkbox in Options is
necessary. It's a bit heavy-handed, especially when the user has to check
the box every time they play.

We should leave the disclaimer in the AboutDialog, and just remove the
checkbox in Options. In Options we can add a button to view the AboutDialog.
I think that's sufficient. That way the disclaimer is still available on
game start-up, but it doesn't block people from playing.

I don't think it's necessary to hard-code the disclaimer text. It's
inconsistent with our localization efforts. It's also inconsistent with the
philosophy behind choosing an open source license. Having a single copy of
the disclaimer in the LocalisedText.properties file is good enough.

Util.isEqual() is unnecessary. There's already a .equals() method that
everything inherits from Object. In a few places we override the .equals()
method to make more meaningful comparisons. One example is MapHex.

I know you want to get rid of GameTest. We'll do it very soon, but we should
do it after we refactor the package hierarchy. For now, we should reorganize
our existing files into a hierarchy that uses the rails.foo.bar model and
perhaps cleans up a few current organizational issues. Then, we can move
main() into a better location.


For now, I would like to see a scaled-down patch that is just adding the
AboutDialog and the disclaimer.

Then, we can come back and find a good way to start adding some more
consistent conventions and relocate some of these other files.



- Questions
>    - Java-Version
>       Which one are you using? By know I have used only 1.4.2 syntax, but
> would like to go up to 1.6 (or 1.5).
>       1.5 should be faster and has more type-safty and a enumaration.
>       1.6 should be faster then 1.5 and has some advantages in
> web-services
>       At work, we are using still 1.4.2, becouse we have some
> third-party-libs, which are not compatible with 1.5, but I would like to
> get
> experince in 1.5/1.6



The last time we talked about it (at least 1 or 2 years ago), we had decided
to use Java 1.4.2. However, that might be something we can revisit. I'm not
sure how Java's adoption has been going. If most people have 1.5 or 1.6, I
don't see a problem changing our system requirements.


---Brett