Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


#ActualRakilonn

Posted 22 February 2013 - 02:32 AM

I think it's worth to mention the component based architecture which is quite attractive.

Basically it says that your main classes are containers of components and components are behaviors or features (like "Render", "Collide", "Controllable").

It's a way to avoid the duplication problem of the inheritance and big base classes.

 

However even if it solves the problem of the inheritance, it brings new problem (as the communication between components) but at least your code is more independent and intuitive.

 

A very nice article:

http://gameprogrammingpatterns.com/component.html

 

and also:

 

http://cowboyprogramming.com/2007/01/05/evolve-your-heirachy

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composition_over_inheritance

 

Also please note that there are many different ways to implement this solution but the idea stays the same : you create some components which represent behaviors or features and you create your final object by assembling the components you need.


#3Rakilonn

Posted 22 February 2013 - 02:31 AM

I think it's worth to mention the component based architecture which is quite attractive.

Basically it says that your main classes are containers of components and components are behaviors or features (like "Render", "Collide", "Controllable").

It's a way to avoid the duplication problem of the inheritance.

 

However even if it solves the problem of the inheritance, it brings new problem (as the communication between components) but at least your code is more independent and intuitive.

 

A very nice article:

http://gameprogrammingpatterns.com/component.html

 

and also:

 

http://cowboyprogramming.com/2007/01/05/evolve-your-heirachy

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composition_over_inheritance

 

Also please note that there are many different ways to implement this solution but the idea stays the same : you create some components which represent behaviors or features and you create your final object by assembling the components you need.


#2Rakilonn

Posted 22 February 2013 - 02:31 AM

I think it's worth to mention the component based architecture which is quite attractive.

Basically it says that your main classes are containers of components and components are behaviors or features (like "Render", "Collide", "Controllable").

It's a way to avoid the duplication problem of the inheritance.

 

However even if it solves the problem of the inheritance, it brings new problem (as the communication between components) but at least your code is more independent and intuitive.

 

A very nice article:

http://gameprogrammingpatterns.com/component.html

 

and also:

 

http://cowboyprogramming.com/2007/01/05/evolve-your-heirachy

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composition_over_inheritance

 

Also please note that there are many different ways to implement this solution but the idea stays the same : you create some components which represent behaviors or features and you create your final object by assembling the components you need.


#1Rakilonn

Posted 22 February 2013 - 02:29 AM

I think it s worth to mention the component based architecture which is quite attractive.

Basically it say that your main classes are containers of components and components are behaviors or features.

It's a way to avoid the duplication problem of the inheritance.

 

However even if it solves the problem of the inheritance, it brings new problem (as the communication between components) but at least your code is more independent and intuitive.

 

A very nice article:

http://gameprogrammingpatterns.com/component.html

 

and also:

 

http://cowboyprogramming.com/2007/01/05/evolve-your-heirachy

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composition_over_inheritance

 

Also please note that there are many different ways to implement this solution but the idea stays the same : you create some components which represent behaviors or features and you create your final object by assembling the components you need.


PARTNERS