Print

Print


Good point about YAML, Mark!  I've been wanting to switch to something like
that for a while.  The really long, dotted parameter names ECJ uses to
denote an object hierarchy work great, but are painful to read.

Just thinking aloud here: I've also been trying to understand the
similarities and differences between using a configuration file/markup
language for parameters and relationships between objects, vs. using an
inversion control framework like Spring
<http://projects.spring.io/spring-framework/>.  Is what Spring does via
annotations and XML files essentially the same thing that ECJ does with
property files?

On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 2:39 PM, Mark Coletti <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 7:22 AM, Christian Meyer <[log in to unmask]
> > wrote:
>
>> Using an entity component system (ECS) might be suitable for you. It is
>> similar to the strategy pattern but any combination of "strategies" is
>> possible and also saving state along with them.
>>
>>
> This seems to be a flavor of the State
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_pattern> design pattern, which is
> similar to Strategy; either or both of these might be applicable for the
> agent implementation.  As others have stated, Factory is good for
> externalizing the creation of complex objects, and also using subclasses to
> add special case complexity.
>
> As to a configuration language, Siggy, something like YAML
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YAML> might actually be more useful for
> specifying run-time behavior.  There exist a number of open source YAML
> libraries.
>
> - Mark
>



-- 

Ph.D student in Computer Science
George Mason University
http://mason.gmu.edu/~escott8/