Re: [Rails-devel] Design Question regarding Minors/Majors [corrected]

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

> From: Stefan Frey [mailto:ste...@we...]
> Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2014 3:57 PM
> To: Development list for Rails: an 18xx game
> Subject: Re: [Rails-devel] Design Question regarding Minors/Majors
> [corrected]
> 
> We differ in the fact that I prefer composition over inheritance for
companies
> in Rails. However please feel free to adopt your favorite style of coding
for
> your implementation. I am sure that for example Erik for example would
> prefer your approach over mine ;-)

If so, that would probably be more a consequence of not knowing any better
than anything else.  
When I started working on Rails (after Brett's initial work), I had got
neither much education nor much experience with Java, and so I had to invent
strategies mainly on my own
(many discussions with Brett notwithstanding. The XML processing approach
through the ConfigurableComponentI interface is from Iain Adams).  
 
> One detailed comment:
> My proposals were for XML templates, it did not imply creating new Java
> classes. XML company templates are much more lightweight than new
> classes.

I fully agree with that. One other consideration I have always tried to
adhere to was to keep the number of classes and class types as low as
reasonably possible, in order not to get lost in the kind of jungle that I
later noticed in another (and quite different) project. 
But by now I fully leave it to you all, and in particular Stefan, to decide
how to proceed. The composition approach does look attractive to me.
 
> Except from that I fully agree with your proposal, however it would be
great
> if you were able to include 1856 (and current prototypes 1826,
> 18Scan?) into your analysis of nationalization?

The 18Scan SJ merger is predefined and thus resembles the 1835/37 mergers. I
think the main difference is that everything occurs at once.

Erik