Interesting design question
Author
The db is a good idea, I just worry about speed (And maybe that worry is unfounded). Do you have any details (papers, web pages, etc) on that approach.
Quote:Original post by shaftI thought it was your idea:
The db is a good idea, I just worry about speed (And maybe that worry is unfounded). Do you have any details (papers, web pages, etc) on that approach.
Quote:At its highest level it is a data-centered architecture where game data is in a central data store, and technology component attach and operate on that data.
By db, I merely meant your central data store. Otherwise, I did some thinking and I think such an architecture is poor since it is equivalent to a collection of singletons. I don't think that's a good idea at all. Each component should have it's own db that handles its own needs.
Why would the audio component need to access the same db as the graphics component?
Author
Why would an audio need acess to the same data as graphics?
An object usable by both would have position and orientation. Both components would benefit by some form of scene management (selective object processing). Why duplicated that for EVERY component.
Part of the architecture also allows for smaller level of components. No longer just one huge AI system. Instead you may have an AI component that attaches and performs pathfinding. Another attaches and performs general strategy. Attach both and you suddenly have objects that can plan and move. But each component is actually independent and could be developed and tested independently.
Read the thesis I posted. There is a method to my madness... Or atleast a madness to my method ;)
PS: I'm not saying that a component can't have component specific data hidden to all except the component. For example a graphics engine would require an object to have a "mesh" object that is meaningless to other attached components. In fact, "domain knowledge localization" is one of the requirements of the architecture.
I actually take that to the extreme and say the game developer doesn't even need to know about that data.
[Edited by - shaft on November 23, 2004 7:06:21 PM]
An object usable by both would have position and orientation. Both components would benefit by some form of scene management (selective object processing). Why duplicated that for EVERY component.
Part of the architecture also allows for smaller level of components. No longer just one huge AI system. Instead you may have an AI component that attaches and performs pathfinding. Another attaches and performs general strategy. Attach both and you suddenly have objects that can plan and move. But each component is actually independent and could be developed and tested independently.
Read the thesis I posted. There is a method to my madness... Or atleast a madness to my method ;)
PS: I'm not saying that a component can't have component specific data hidden to all except the component. For example a graphics engine would require an object to have a "mesh" object that is meaningless to other attached components. In fact, "domain knowledge localization" is one of the requirements of the architecture.
I actually take that to the extreme and say the game developer doesn't even need to know about that data.
[Edited by - shaft on November 23, 2004 7:06:21 PM]
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
