Home » Stars! Clones, Extensions, Modding » Stars! Nova - Development » FleetIntel question
Re: FleetIntel question |
Wed, 13 July 2011 21:35 |
|
Aeglos | | | Messages: 142
Registered: May 2011 Location: Chile | |
|
Having done progress on this, I think it's a dead end to be honest. I also think we might be overcomplicating things due to our inclination to model this relationship in some oop way after my initial changes ( )
There is a problem with the 'has-a' approach: The Star Report fields need all to be set with the proper real data inside the Star's report property for it (Star) to work properly, so we would need a special method to select the right amount of data according to the knowledge level for each object anyway, as we simply can't retrieve the full report; we would still be passing extra data (like colonists or concentration on unexplored stars).
Now that we've agreed to have them in separate owned/report collections again, we don't really need them to conform to a common interface or be polymorphic; we clearly aren't going to mix them up in the client. We won't be looking at the OwnedStars to draw the StarMap for example, and we won't be trying to access production queues on neutral stars.
I strongly think that we should treat them as what they are; diferent things, and be done with it. Star and Fleet (right as they are now) should have a GenerateReport(IntelLevel) method that creates and returns a new, distinct and separate P.O.D. StarIntel/FleetIntel object with the amount of fields set according to IntelLevel, with some sensible defaults.
I realize that this is probably going full circle to something really close to Ken's (or was it someone else's?) original design... but it's what's making the most sense after trying the other approaches in-code. Mea Culpa for braking this in the first place instead of improving the design already in place.
[Updated on: Wed, 13 July 2011 21:36] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
FleetIntel question
|
|
|
Re: FleetIntel question
By: Aeglos on Tue, 05 July 2011 22:00
|
|
|
Re: FleetIntel question
By: Daniel on Wed, 06 July 2011 18:52
|
|
|
Re: FleetIntel question
By: Aeglos on Wed, 06 July 2011 22:06
|
|
|
Re: FleetIntel question
By: Daniel on Thu, 07 July 2011 05:03
|
|
|
Re: FleetIntel question
|
|
|
Re: FleetIntel question
By: Aeglos on Wed, 06 July 2011 17:01
|
|
|
Re: FleetIntel question
|
|
|
Re: FleetIntel question
By: Aeglos on Wed, 06 July 2011 21:05
|
|
|
Re: FleetIntel question
By: Aeglos on Thu, 07 July 2011 05:40
|
|
|
Re: FleetIntel question
|
|
|
Re: FleetIntel question
By: Daniel on Sat, 09 July 2011 20:22
|
|
|
Re: FleetIntel question
By: Aeglos on Sun, 10 July 2011 16:53
|
|
|
Re: FleetIntel question
By: Daniel on Mon, 11 July 2011 03:15
|
|
|
Re: FleetIntel question
By: Aeglos on Sat, 09 July 2011 20:38
|
|
|
Re: FleetIntel question
By: Daniel on Sat, 09 July 2011 23:50
|
|
|
Re: FleetIntel question
By: Aeglos on Mon, 11 July 2011 04:11
|
|
|
Re: FleetIntel question
|
|
|
Re: FleetIntel question
|
|
|
Re: FleetIntel question
By: Daniel on Mon, 11 July 2011 07:19
|
|
|
Re: FleetIntel question
By: Aeglos on Mon, 11 July 2011 14:44
|
|
|
Re: FleetIntel question
By: Aeglos on Wed, 13 July 2011 21:35
|
|
|
Re: FleetIntel question
By: Daniel on Thu, 14 July 2011 04:53
|
|
|
Re: FleetIntel question
By: Aeglos on Thu, 14 July 2011 05:11
|
|
|
Re: FleetIntel question
|
|
|
Re: FleetIntel question
By: Aeglos on Thu, 14 July 2011 17:46
|
|
|
Re: FleetIntel question
By: Aeglos on Thu, 21 July 2011 23:59
|
|
|
Re: FleetIntel question
|
|
|
Re: FleetIntel question
|
|
|
Re: FleetIntel question
By: Aeglos on Fri, 22 July 2011 16:45
|
|
|
Re: FleetIntel question
|
|
|
Re: FleetIntel question
By: Daniel on Fri, 22 July 2011 17:52
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sat May 04 11:19:13 EDT 2024
|