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

[Rainer M. <rai...@we...>]

Hi,
=20
>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.=20
>=20
I do not think so. Take a 1/2 Second to confirm that I own the boardgame =
is
nothink agains the playtime (4-6 hours).
Maybe I'm paranoid. But I wan't just as much protection agains lowyers =
as
possible.=20
Friends have experients with them and I would like to avoid such =
trouble.
=20
>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.=20
>=20
Avaible is not enougth. We have to make sure, that the have at least to =
look
at it.
We can show the AboutDialog at every startup for a view seconds or after
creating a new game.=20
But both means more disadvantage for playstart then this checkbox.
I don'nt know how many times I have to check a box for agreement yet, =
but it
havend nervered me.
=20

>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.=20
>
OK, I have not read the hole open source licence yet,
but properties are there to change it. We do not know, if there =
translation
will be correct.=20
I show only the english version, if the user choose english, and BOTH, =
if he
choose an other language.
At this way, the user can write a translation for him, but he has to =
change
the code, if he want to change the meening.
=20

>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.=20
>
You can not do the think I have done in isEquals in obj.equals, becouse =
obj
can not be null in your point of view.
My implementaion holds all rules for equals() and does the use of it =
easier.
It has nothink to do with overiding the equals method self.
PS.: Hope you have hold all rules for equals-overiding in MapHex.
=20

>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.=20
>
I do not understand for what you are waiting, GameTest is complete
implemented in RailsSwing,=20
but If you want to to thinks twice from now on, don'nt remove it.
You do not need another patch do do this change.
=20

>For now, I would like to see a scaled-down patch that is just adding
>the AboutDialog and the disclaimer.=20
>=20
>Then, we can come back and find a good way to start adding some more
>consistent conventions and relocate some of these other files.=20
>
As I said at my first email to you, protection agains lowyers is a very
import think for me.
You will not get another patch, as long as we don'nt get a agreement =
about
how far we go with it.
The implementaion of my patch is what I think we have to do at leased. I
have show you some alternatives in this mail,=20
but for my thoughts, they are much more annoing then this =
implementation.
=20

Rainer