Re: [Rails-devel] Rails2.0: Further Changes

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

Then I don't see why this WalletManager could not, when asked for the IPO
wallet, return the Bank wallet.
Perhaps it's just me, but I don't see any benefit, just problems, with
splitting up the Bank cash this way.

public BankMoneyModel(Bank bank) {
	bankWallet = Wallet.create(bank, "wallet", Currency.class);
	ipoWallet = bankWallet; // redundant code, of course, but I hope you
get the point.
	poolWallet = bankWallet;
	bankWallet.addModel(this);
}

Erik.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stefan Frey [mailto:ste...@we...]
> Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2012 11:06 PM
> To: Development list for Rails: an 18xx game
> Subject: Re: [Rails-devel] Rails2.0: Further Changes
> 
> It might sound more complicated, but it is a consequence of the indirect
> access to Wallets and Portfolios.
> 
> The link between the Wallet and the Owner is defined once and forever by
> creating a Wallet with the Owner as the parent.
> 
> It does not matter where the Wallet lives (e.g. inside a variable of the
owner
> itself, inside a PortfolioModel or stored at a completely different
object).
> 
> At the time of adding money the Owner is NOT asked for its wallet, but the
> wallet for the according owner is provided by the WalletManager by asking
> for the correct Wallet for the (Owner, Type) combination.
> 
> A potential code snippet for an aggregate BankMoneyModel class:
> 
> private Wallet<Currency> bankWallet;
> private Wallet<Currency> ipoWallet;
> private Wallet<Currency> poolWallet;
> 
> public BankMoneyModel(Bank bank) {
> 	bankWallet = Wallet.create(bank, "wallet", Currency.class);
> 	ipoWallet = Wallet.create(bank.getIpo(), "wallet", Currency.class);
> 	poolWallet = Wallet.create(bank.getPool(), "wallet",
Currency.class);
> 	bankWallet.addModel(this);
> 	ipoWallet.addModel(this);
> 	poolWallet.addModel(this);
> }
> 
> public int getCash() {
> 	return bankWallet.value() + ipoWallet.value() + poolWallet.value();
}
> 
> In the example above you could wire money to Bank, Pool or Ipo and it has
> the same net effect to the BankMoneyModel.
> 
> The MoneyOwner interface is only a helper/legacy interface to allow an
easy
> access the cash value.
> 
> On 09/02/2012 10:30 PM, Erik Vos wrote:
> >> However it might make the code easier to assume that IPO/Pool etc.
> >> have their own cash wallet to make the item buying code easier:
> >> Then the counterparty of the item transaction is identical to the
> > counterparty
> >> of the accompanying cash transaction.
> >
> > To me, that sounds like making life more complicated rather than
> > making it simpler.
> > Why then not have the Bank portfolios contain a reference to the Bank
> > Wallet?
> > Or indeed, include into every Portfolio a reference to its owner's
Wallet.
> >
> > Erik.
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --------
> > Live Security Virtual Conference
> > Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
> > threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond.
> > Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the
> > latest in malware threats.
> > http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
> > _______________________________________________
> > Rails-devel mailing list
> > Rai...@li...
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel
> >
> 
> 
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> Live Security Virtual Conference
> Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat
> landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will
> include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats.
> http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
> _______________________________________________
> Rails-devel mailing list
> Rai...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel