Re: [Rails-devel] Some (multi-)undo related bugs

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

On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 3:04 PM, Erik Vos <eri...@xs...> wrote:
> Post-merge, perhaps it makes sense to have certain Model objects have
> an Observable property?
>
> e.g. bool isObservable = True
>
> [EV]
> ModelObject extends Observable - being observable is integral to, and the
> sole reason for the existence of ModelObjects.
> State extends ModelObject - that's a bonus for State objects: that they can
> be observed. But not all are. So not all ModelObjects are in fact observed.
>
> Or, maybe it doesn't matter, and the UI simply uses the Model objects
> that make sense, and doesn't use the ones it doesn't need and there's
> really no difference between them at all. :-)
>
> [EV] So that's in fact already the case. But the point was, that not all
> ModelObjects have state, and the question is: should that change?
>

Turn-based boardgames are effectively state machines.  I'm not sure I
can think of a model object that should be stateless.

Certain parts of the view (in an MVC world) can and should be
stateless, but the model *is* the state of the application (read:
game).

> Erik.
>

---Brett