Menu
▾
▴
rails-devel
|
From: Stefan F. <ste...@we...> - 2012-10-09 13:13:13
|
Brett and Erik: in preparation of a rails2.0 alpha release (including webstart hopefully), I want to change the directory layout of rails2.0. I already separated the test from the main code by introducing the two main folders src/ and junit/. * The next step is to move to a structure which is similar to maven (even if we keep ant as our build tool I think the directory structure is not worse than any other and it makes it easier to move to maven if we want to do so) The structure is the following: http://maven.apache.org/guides/introduction/introduction-to-the-standard-directory-layout.html * The other thing I want to fix is the standard Java directory layout in which the namespace is mirrored by directories: I propose to change rails/ into net/sf/rails. Combined the changes will be: A) Move code from src/rails to src/main/java/net/sf/rails B) Move files from src/tiles and src/data to src/main/resources/... C) Move jars in lib from src/lib to src/main/resources/... D) Move code from junit/rails to src/test/java/net/sf/rails E) Move code from src/test to src/test/java/net/sf/rails/test F) Move files from src/test/data to src/test/resources/... G) Keep readme and other files at top-level directory I would also add a basic pom.xml at the top-level directory. Any objections to that? I know that it might not so easy to navigate around (at least on the command line), but it is close to the standards. Stefan |
|
From: brett l. <bre...@gm...> - 2012-10-09 14:17:14
|
I don't have any objections to this. ---Brett. On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 9:13 AM, Stefan Frey <ste...@we...> wrote: > Brett and Erik: > in preparation of a rails2.0 alpha release (including webstart > hopefully), I want to change the directory layout of rails2.0. > > I already separated the test from the main code by introducing the two > main folders src/ and junit/. > > * The next step is to move to a structure which is similar to maven > (even if we keep ant as our build tool I think the directory structure > is not worse than any other and it makes it easier to move to maven if > we want to do so) > > The structure is the following: > > http://maven.apache.org/guides/introduction/introduction-to-the-standard-directory-layout.html > > * The other thing I want to fix is the standard Java directory layout in > which the namespace is mirrored by directories: I propose to change > rails/ into net/sf/rails. > > Combined the changes will be: > > A) Move code from src/rails to src/main/java/net/sf/rails > B) Move files from src/tiles and src/data to src/main/resources/... > C) Move jars in lib from src/lib to src/main/resources/... > D) Move code from junit/rails to src/test/java/net/sf/rails > E) Move code from src/test to src/test/java/net/sf/rails/test > F) Move files from src/test/data to src/test/resources/... > G) Keep readme and other files at top-level directory > > I would also add a basic pom.xml at the top-level directory. > > Any objections to that? > > I know that it might not so easy to navigate around (at least on the > command line), but it is close to the standards. > > Stefan > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Don't let slow site performance ruin your business. Deploy New Relic APM > Deploy New Relic app performance management and know exactly > what is happening inside your Ruby, Python, PHP, Java, and .NET app > Try New Relic at no cost today and get our sweet Data Nerd shirt too! > http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic-dev2dev > _______________________________________________ > Rails-devel mailing list > Rai...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel |
|
From: Erik V. <eri...@xs...> - 2012-10-09 14:40:51
|
Neither do I. The only thing I know about Maven is that it has files called pom.xml all over the place, so just don't expect me to say anything sensible about that technology. Erik. > -----Original Message----- > From: brett lentz [mailto:bre...@gm...] > Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 4:17 PM > To: Development list for Rails: an 18xx game > Subject: Re: [Rails-devel] Directory layout and webstart preparations > > I don't have any objections to this. > > ---Brett. > > On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 9:13 AM, Stefan Frey <ste...@we...> wrote: > > Brett and Erik: > > in preparation of a rails2.0 alpha release (including webstart > > hopefully), I want to change the directory layout of rails2.0. > > > > I already separated the test from the main code by introducing the two > > main folders src/ and junit/. > > > > * The next step is to move to a structure which is similar to maven > > (even if we keep ant as our build tool I think the directory structure > > is not worse than any other and it makes it easier to move to maven if > > we want to do so) > > > > The structure is the following: > > > > http://maven.apache.org/guides/introduction/introduction-to-the-standa > > rd-directory-layout.html > > > > * The other thing I want to fix is the standard Java directory layout > > in which the namespace is mirrored by directories: I propose to change > > rails/ into net/sf/rails. > > > > Combined the changes will be: > > > > A) Move code from src/rails to src/main/java/net/sf/rails > > B) Move files from src/tiles and src/data to src/main/resources/... > > C) Move jars in lib from src/lib to src/main/resources/... > > D) Move code from junit/rails to src/test/java/net/sf/rails > > E) Move code from src/test to src/test/java/net/sf/rails/test > > F) Move files from src/test/data to src/test/resources/... > > G) Keep readme and other files at top-level directory > > > > I would also add a basic pom.xml at the top-level directory. > > > > Any objections to that? > > > > I know that it might not so easy to navigate around (at least on the > > command line), but it is close to the standards. > > > > Stefan > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -------- Don't let slow site performance ruin your business. Deploy > > New Relic APM Deploy New Relic app performance management and know > > exactly what is happening inside your Ruby, Python, PHP, Java, and > > .NET app Try New Relic at no cost today and get our sweet Data Nerd > > shirt too! > > http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic-dev2dev > > _______________________________________________ > > Rails-devel mailing list > > Rai...@li... > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > Don't let slow site performance ruin your business. Deploy New Relic APM > Deploy New Relic app performance management and know exactly what is > happening inside your Ruby, Python, PHP, Java, and .NET app Try New Relic > at no cost today and get our sweet Data Nerd shirt too! > http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic-dev2dev > _______________________________________________ > Rails-devel mailing list > Rai...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel |
|
From: Schnell, V. <vol...@ar...> - 2012-10-09 17:25:26
|
hi here is another bug in rails 1.7.10. When the first 4-Train is bought from the Bayern-President, the owner of the M2 decides to start the Prussian. The director changes to Klaus-Jürgen, who owns the majority. Then the Wür wants to by a Train from the Prussian, but Rails gives no such option. see also the attached file. greetings volker -- Volker Schnell email: vol...@ar... homepage: home.arcor.de\volker_schnell |
|
From: Erik V. <eri...@xs...> - 2012-10-09 19:32:13
|
Ah, interesting. The cause is, that the train search algorithm skips operating companies that do not (yet) actually operate (i.e., in the current OR). I have found and pushed a fix, that now includes all companies that have floated (and are otherwise eligible to sell trains). Hopefully there are no exceptions to this new rule. I can't think of any, and all test cases pass, so in all likelihood we are OK. Erik. > -----Original Message----- > From: Schnell, Volker [mailto:vol...@ar...] > Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2012 7:25 PM > To: Development list for Rails: an 18xx game > Subject: [Rails-devel] 1835 Bug > > hi > > here is another bug in rails 1.7.10. > When the first 4-Train is bought from the Bayern-President, the owner of the > M2 decides to start the Prussian. > The director changes to Klaus-Jürgen, who owns the majority. > Then the Wür wants to by a Train from the Prussian, but Rails gives no such > option. > see also the attached file. > > greetings > > volker > > -- > Volker Schnell > email: vol...@ar... > homepage: home.arcor.de\volker_schnell |
|
From: Mike B. <com...@ip...> - 2012-10-10 00:04:22
|
I have seen some groups who don't permit the purchase of trains from Government-owned corporations (the Prussian and CGR, specifically). This might be yet another candidate for a game option. To the best of my knowledge, these two would be the only operating companies that would have been affected by this bug. In a related issue, I do believe that some of the 18xx game rules forbid the purchase of trains from corporations who have not *operated* yet, even if they have floated, but I can't be more specific or more certain. This would prohibit certain bootstrapping practices (float a corp, buy an about-to-die train from another corp for most of the treasury, buy a train to trigger a phase change, the corp which received the treasury then buys the new and better train from the first at a pittance. The owner is then forced to sell shares in order to raise capital for a train, dumping the company - and the problem - on some other poor schmuck who bought shares in the company in good faith). Mike Bourke Campaign Mastery http://www.campaignmastery.com Co-author, Assassin's Amulet http://www.legaciescampaignsetting.com |
|
From: John D. G. <jd...@di...> - 2012-10-10 05:06:37
|
On 2012-10-09 16:29, Mike Bourke wrote: > I have seen some groups who don't permit the purchase of trains from > Government-owned corporations (the Prussian and CGR, specifically). This > might be yet another candidate for a game option. To the best of my > knowledge, these two would be the only operating companies that would have > been affected by this bug. I haven't seen that variant rule, but it makes some sense. The CGR does have some serious restrictions on its ability to buy/sell trains in the standard rules, as does the Asteroid League; but the Prussian and the three state companies of 1837 don't. A harder question would arise in games like 18Mex, when a minor company may merge into and transfer a train to a larger company that isn't allowed to operate yet (requires a phase change and/or more shares to be purchased before it can float). In that situation I would not let anyone buy a train from the "hibernating" company, even if we already know who its president will be. > In a related issue, I do believe that some of the 18xx game rules forbid the > purchase of trains from corporations who have not *operated* yet, even if > they have floated, but I can't be more specific or more certain. I'm not aware of any cases like this. Of course in most games it can't happen; it requires that the company which hasn't yet operated have a train, I've seen this happen because that company began with a train (minors in 18EU) or because it is a merged company and one of its predecessors had a train (1841, 1832, 18C2C, but also the Prussian, CGR, Asteroid League, and 1837 state RRs). I'm pretty sure that none of these games prohibits those companies from selling their trains before they first operate, except that if the Asteroid League has only one train it can't sell it. > This would > prohibit certain bootstrapping practices (float a corp, buy an about-to-die > train from another corp for most of the treasury, buy a train to trigger a > phase change, the corp which received the treasury then buys the new and > better train from the first at a pittance. The owner is then forced to sell > shares in order to raise capital for a train, dumping the company - and the > problem - on some other poor schmuck who bought shares in the company in > good faith). That's the two-company dump, which is expressly banned in nearly all 18xx games, usually by requiring that any train purchase which involves emergency money raising be from the bank or bank pool and not from another company. (In the original 1830 it is still possible to generate a heated rules debate by saying that this maneuver is or isn't legal -- the rules simply don't address the question, and I believe that ALL possible rulings one way or the other lead to contradictions, making it a classic paradox. Bruce Shelley's errata tries to quash it by, once again, requiring that an emergency train purchase be made from the bank or bank pool, and this is the way most people in my area play the game.) |
|
From: Erik V. <eri...@xs...> - 2012-10-10 11:52:40
|
> That's the two-company dump, which is expressly banned in nearly all 18xx > games, usually by requiring that any train purchase which involves > emergency money raising be from the bank or bank pool and not from > another company. If I'm correct, Rails does not prevent buying trains from other companies in emergency train buying. Certainly not in 1830 (where I have a test case). So that is a bug (except perhaps in 1830)? Erik. |
|
From: Mike B. <com...@ip...> - 2012-10-10 13:43:44
|
It's not expressly forbidden. Neither is it expressly permitted. That generally leaves the question in the form of customary usage and house rules, which are necessarily local and not general. There are three common approaches to a company being forced to buy a train. The first is that a train may be purchased from any corporation that has one, or from the bank, provided that such purchases are not explicitly forbidden. The second restricts such purchases to non-government corporations and the bank. The third restricts the purchases to the bank only. All are equally valid under the rules, but can produce very different game play. That is why I suggested the possibility of this being an option (probably on the game configuration panel), with the first approach (the most universal / least restricted) being the default. So the game currently works correctly in that default mode except in the matter of the original bug reported. Mike Bourke Campaign Mastery http://www.campaignmastery.com Co-author, Assassin's Amulet http://www.legaciescampaignsetting.com -----Original Message----- From: Erik Vos [mailto:eri...@xs...] Sent: Wednesday, 10 October 2012 10:53 PM To: 'Development list for Rails: an 18xx game' Subject: Re: [Rails-devel] 1835 Bug > That's the two-company dump, which is expressly banned in nearly all 18xx > games, usually by requiring that any train purchase which involves > emergency money raising be from the bank or bank pool and not from > another company. If I'm correct, Rails does not prevent buying trains from other companies in emergency train buying. Certainly not in 1830 (where I have a test case). So that is a bug (except perhaps in 1830)? Erik. |
|
From: Chris S. <chr...@gm...> - 2012-10-10 14:15:57
|
There's another set of scenarios to consider - some games distinguish between the bank and the market (aka bank pool) when specifying where a train may (or must) be purchased during emergency money raising. The question is usually framed "is a company that has used emergency money raising required to buy a cheap train from the market, or may it buy a more expensive train from the bank?" -- Chris Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 6:44 AM, Mike Bourke <com...@ip...>wrote: > It's not expressly forbidden. Neither is it expressly permitted. That > generally leaves the question in the form of customary usage and house > rules, which are necessarily local and not general. > > There are three common approaches to a company being forced to buy a train. > The first is that a train may be purchased from any corporation that has > one, or from the bank, provided that such purchases are not explicitly > forbidden. The second restricts such purchases to non-government > corporations and the bank. The third restricts the purchases to the bank > only. All are equally valid under the rules, but can produce very different > game play. > > That is why I suggested the possibility of this being an option (probably > on > the game configuration panel), with the first approach (the most universal > / > least restricted) being the default. So the game currently works correctly > in that default mode except in the matter of the original bug reported. > > Mike Bourke > Campaign Mastery http://www.campaignmastery.com > Co-author, Assassin's Amulet http://www.legaciescampaignsetting.com > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Erik Vos [mailto:eri...@xs...] > Sent: Wednesday, 10 October 2012 10:53 PM > To: 'Development list for Rails: an 18xx game' > Subject: Re: [Rails-devel] 1835 Bug > > > That's the two-company dump, which is expressly banned in nearly all 18xx > > games, usually by requiring that any train purchase which involves > > emergency money raising be from the bank or bank pool and not from > > another company. > > If I'm correct, Rails does not prevent buying trains from other companies > in > emergency train buying. Certainly not in 1830 (where I have a test case). > So that is a bug (except perhaps in 1830)? > > Erik. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Don't let slow site performance ruin your business. Deploy New Relic APM > Deploy New Relic app performance management and know exactly > what is happening inside your Ruby, Python, PHP, Java, and .NET app > Try New Relic at no cost today and get our sweet Data Nerd shirt too! > http://p.sf.net/sfu/newrelic-dev2dev > _______________________________________________ > Rails-devel mailing list > Rai...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rails-devel > |
|
From: Erik V. <eri...@xs...> - 2012-10-10 14:36:30
|
That kind of distinction is already covered by Rails. Erik. From: Chris Shaffer [mailto:chr...@gm...] Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 4:16 PM To: Development list for Rails: an 18xx game Subject: Re: [Rails-devel] 1835 Bug There's another set of scenarios to consider - some games distinguish between the bank and the market (aka bank pool) when specifying where a train may (or must) be purchased during emergency money raising. The question is usually framed "is a company that has used emergency money raising required to buy a cheap train from the market, or may it buy a more expensive train from the bank?" |
×
Want the latest updates on software, tech news, and AI?
Get latest updates about software, tech news, and AI from SourceForge directly in your inbox once a month.
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X