[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Adonthell-devel] Thoughts about modules
From: |
Kai Sterker |
Subject: |
Re: [Adonthell-devel] Thoughts about modules |
Date: |
Mon, 16 Feb 2004 12:07:36 +0100 |
Am Sonntag, 15.02.04 um 20:14 Uhr schrieb Alexandre Courbot:
I've begun implementing the current map model prototype in C++, under
the
"landmap" module. Doing so, I've noticed that "landmap" will never
have to
use something else than "base" and "event" (as could be excepted,
since the
game mechanisms and user interfaces are now completely separated).
Worse, it
appears that all our modules could actually be divided into two types
of
modules: the game modules and the input/output modules.
[...]
The interesting thing to notice is that the I/O modules are the only
ones to
require a backend (like SDL) and the special starting method using
backend
loading. What it means is that a server-only binary will never need to
load a
single backend
Doesn't a server use network (which might depend on backends for
portability)?
Maybe we have to redefine our design here. I'd like to see something
more
coherent, although I fail to imagine how it would look like. Any idea
about
this?
If a server app really would have no need for a backend, then a
slightly different design would be good. However, I am not quite sure
what can be done. Either we'd add some #ifdef SERVER directives to
libmain to exclude the backend code, or we could write a libservermain.
But both alternatives aren't really that great.
OTOH, libmain was written to take care of initializing the I/O part
where needed. If a server app doesn't need this, perhaps it best to not
link it to libmain.
(Besides, if libmain would really include something like a game
launcher and settings dialog, it would (a) require libgui and libinput
and (b) should not appear in a server app.)
PS: Jol and I will be present at FOSDEM 2004, if some of you go there
too, we
could have a drink! ;)
Sorry, but I'm too busy ... :(
Kai