Thanks Luís and Ernesto, that's really helpful.

I imagine that extending MasonGeometry will have a lower overhead than maintaining a map of Geometry->Agent. 

Ernesto, what are the implications of having to make Agent serializable? MasonGeometry implements Serializable, I can continue to implement Steppable.

Thanks in advance,
Nick


On Tue, 22 Mar 2016 14:57:22 +0000, Ernesto Carrella <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>The two easiest solutions are probably to either keep a map
>Geometry-->Agent somewhere  or to subclass MasonGeometry to add a field
>linking it back to the Agent.
>First is probably better since you don't have to worry about making Agent
>serializable as well (although you might not care)
>
>On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 1:56 PM Nick Malleson <[log in to unmask]>
>wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> This might have an easy answer, apologies if I have missed something on
>> the list.
>>
>> I am using a GeomVectorField to store my agents. I need to be able to get
>> back to the original Agent object, not just its associated MasonGeometry. I
>> create agents and add them to the GeomVectorField a bit like this:
>>
>> Agent a = new Agent();
>> agentGeomVectorField.addGeometry(a.getGeometry());
>> schedule.scheduleRepeating(a);
>>
>> That basically works fine, but now I want to be able to get back to the
>> underlying agent. I guess I could maintain a separate List of agents as
>> well as the GeomVectorField, or I could add the agent to its
>> MasonGeometry's userData field.
>>
>> Any opinions on which would be best? How else have people stored their
>> agents and their geometries using geomason?
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>> Nick
>>
>