Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [ARCH] PlayerCharacter design changes - Request for Ideas

Expand Messages
  • Martijn Verburg
    Hi Tom/All, ... Ohh yes, me likey!! ... OK... ... OK... ... I think so yes (lots to digest), it at least takes away my concern :). ... OK ... Yep, sorry my use
    Message 1 of 6 , Jul 30, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Tom/All,

      > > A very long term PCGen goal :)
      > ...which can also be leveraged by places where MSRD is materially
      > different from (R)SRD if you want something that is more tactical.
      > :)
      > Imagine, for example, if PCGen didn't contain any alignment-based
      > code when MSRD was running (+ performance :) ) and could actually
      > detect PREALIGN: as a data bug in an MSRD set (+ data integrity :)
      > ).

      Ohh yes, me likey!!

      > > > [caching]
      > > But instinctively I know that many role playing effects are of a
      > > global type (e.g. A template that removes all spell INT
      > > bonuses), it makes more sense to be able to change things in one
      > > place.
      > Uhh, I want to make sure a few things are clarified, because I'm
      > confused by this comment.
      > First, no facet should ever be accessing another facet's cache.
      > That creates a very tight linkage between Facets that is fragile
      > and error prone. (it's also why we want to have the Class be a key
      > to the global cache, so it takes some effort to get access to
      > someone else's cache [we could make it harder by making the key an
      > object that is stored as a private final Object cacheKey = new
      > Object(); within each facet, but that's overkill & also wastes few
      > bytes of memory in each facet, whereas the Class object already
      > must exist in the JVM]).


      > Let me walk through this to make sure I get your comment. I want
      > to be clear on responsibilities of the facets and responsibility of
      > the Graph.
      > Assume we have a SpellIntFacet that is calculating the values you
      > want.
      > There are a few ways removal can happen.
      > (1) Removal can be structural. This is true of REMOVE, and also
      > HITDIE (Hit Die Locking). These structural changes are handled by
      > the Graph (which then has some method of triggering updates in the
      > facets, as per #4 from my initial note in this thread).
      > SpellIntFacet just queries what is in the graph and all is well.
      > (2) Removal can be algorithmic. I can't name an exact use like
      > this off the top of my head, but the HANDS override in Templates
      > (vs. set in Race) is a close analogy. For a remove case, one
      > example is that we could have a "SUPPRESSINTBONUS:TRUE" token in a
      > Template LST file. This would be locally detected by the
      > SpellIntFacet to control the algorithm. However, that would mean
      > the SpellIntFacet would have to subscribe to the TemplateFacet.
      > This creates a new linkage & thus may force more cache updates when
      > Templates are added to a PC, but it does not influence the
      > local/global nature of a cache.


      > (3) Removal can be BONUS based. In that case, a template removing
      > all Spell INT bonuses would trigger some form of removal by
      > negative BONUS objects. There would be a BonusFacet that would
      > process BONUS totals, and that BonusFacet would be connected to the
      > SpellIntFacet. Therefore, the BONUS facet is what is responsible
      > for tracking (and probably caching) BONUS values.
      > Does that help clarify?

      I think so yes (lots to digest), it at least takes away my concern :).

      > I list those because I don't see any of them really impacting the
      > local/global nature of the cache (which is why I'm concerned I
      > don't get what you're trying to say); however, they DO result in
      > different required "subscriptions" by Facets (this is why getting
      > the Facets connected is so important)


      > > > 3) How does the HandsFacet get connected? Presumably it needs
      > > > to know about the RaceFacet and TemplateFacet. Presumably this
      > > > is provided at construction or in setters or ??. Thoughts?
      > > > (one comment: During construction concerns me because we may
      > > > run into circular dependencies)
      > >
      > > This gets complicated (and I haven't got an answer), we're going
      > > to have to try and make assumptions about what can know about
      > > what.
      > It's not assumptions, it will be rigidly defined. The problem is
      > that it is not a directed acyclic graph. It's cyclic, which means
      > it's nasty. It's also a lot of connections, so will take a bunch
      > of code to do all of the facet initialization.

      Yep, sorry my use of assumptions was bad English, what I meant is that we'll have to make up that definition based on our knowledge of various gamemodes/rulesets.

      > > Since so many rule systems like to have strange an unusual rules
      > > we could start drifting back towards the 'everything' knows about
      > > 'everything' PObject model, which is less than ideal :|
      > I'm not concerned about this. The point of generating a modular
      > system is to be able to handle these situations with a new module
      > (or facet in our case). There are at least 2 decent ways of
      > handling that, but I don't want to have that implementation detail
      > on the table right now, for fear of debate that is distracting to
      > our immediate concerns (IMHO anyway). Andrew, can you capture this
      > as an action of unfinished discussions on the list you have on the
      > Wiki?

      OK, Happy to leave it until later :)

      > > > 4C) Fine grained updates, where explicit change messages are
      > > > transmitted through a Listener-Event system (or something
      > > > similar) between the facets.
      > >
      > > So Facets listening to 'their' nodes on the Graph? That's a
      > > valid option as well in my book.
      > Not sure what you mean by 'their', so let me clarify: The
      > HandsFacet would "subscribe" to the RaceFacet and the TemplateFacet
      > and thus get changes if the Race is changed or a Template is added
      > or removed from the PC. If you add the "Dodge" feat, there is no
      > work for the HandsFacet to do (it will not receive an event). This
      > fine grained update is much more CPU friendly since it will not
      > waste effort for "immaterial" changes. It also doesn't require a
      > global "isDirty" system, which is subject to mistakes if it is
      > forgotten (or causes false positives on changed PCs if used in
      > places where it is not necessary).
      > This is my preferred method.

      Yes, that is what I meant and it's also my preferred solution (for what it's worth ;p).

      > > I use Spring a bit at work, and there are other DI and AOP
      > > frameworks out there, but as you say I'd like to see concrete
      > > examples thought out using those before we made a switch over.
      > The primary use case is for the structural connecting of the facets
      > (primarily to avoid a multi-hundred line constructor of
      > PlayerCharacter that is constructing facets and connecting them).
      > This is very open as to whether it is worth the cost of bringing in
      > a framework like Tapestry or Spring. I think the tipping point
      > will be in testing (the frameworks may be able to provide an
      > improved testing environment) and/or once we go beyond d20. At
      > this point, I don't think we have any AOP use cases.

      Fair enough, something to look at a fair bit later I suspect anyhow.


      PS: These discussions are great!
    • Martijn Verburg
      Hi all, ... I ve sent out a calendar invite, it would be great if we could see you there! K
      Message 2 of 6 , Aug 3, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi all,

        > > I think there are two ways forward here: First, we can discuss on
        > > the list. Then I think we should get together on IRC. I'd suggest
        > > Fri Aug 14 6 PM EDT for that discussion (gives people time to plan
        > > and is a time that James and I both theoretically are available
        > > [real time subject to James checking his calendar!])
        > I'll probably be available then, I guess we can send out a calendar
        > notification in Y!. But yes, more people should comment here first,
        > especially those with more working knowledge of the code than me
        > (which is most of you).

        I've sent out a calendar invite, it would be great if we could see you there!

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.