• Announcements

    • khawk

      Download the Game Design and Indie Game Marketing Freebook   07/19/17

      GameDev.net and CRC Press have teamed up to bring a free ebook of content curated from top titles published by CRC Press. The freebook, Practices of Game Design & Indie Game Marketing, includes chapters from The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, and An Architectural Approach to Level Design. The GameDev.net FreeBook is relevant to game designers, developers, and those interested in learning more about the challenges in game development. We know game development can be a tough discipline and business, so we picked several chapters from CRC Press titles that we thought would be of interest to you, the GameDev.net audience, in your journey to design, develop, and market your next game. The free ebook is available through CRC Press by clicking here. The Curated Books The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, Second Edition, by Jesse Schell Presents 100+ sets of questions, or different lenses, for viewing a game’s design, encompassing diverse fields such as psychology, architecture, music, film, software engineering, theme park design, mathematics, anthropology, and more. Written by one of the world's top game designers, this book describes the deepest and most fundamental principles of game design, demonstrating how tactics used in board, card, and athletic games also work in video games. It provides practical instruction on creating world-class games that will be played again and again. View it here. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, by Joel Dreskin Marketing is an essential but too frequently overlooked or minimized component of the release plan for indie games. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing provides you with the tools needed to build visibility and sell your indie games. With special focus on those developers with small budgets and limited staff and resources, this book is packed with tangible recommendations and techniques that you can put to use immediately. As a seasoned professional of the indie game arena, author Joel Dreskin gives you insight into practical, real-world experiences of marketing numerous successful games and also provides stories of the failures. View it here. An Architectural Approach to Level Design This is one of the first books to integrate architectural and spatial design theory with the field of level design. The book presents architectural techniques and theories for level designers to use in their own work. It connects architecture and level design in different ways that address the practical elements of how designers construct space and the experiential elements of how and why humans interact with this space. Throughout the text, readers learn skills for spatial layout, evoking emotion through gamespaces, and creating better levels through architectural theory. View it here. Learn more and download the ebook by clicking here. Did you know? GameDev.net and CRC Press also recently teamed up to bring GDNet+ Members up to a 20% discount on all CRC Press books. Learn more about this and other benefits here.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
abrakadabra

polymorphism and inheriting from a base template class

7 posts in this topic

I am trying to design a component-based entity system and I came up with a solution that looks similar to this:

class base_component
{

};

template <class T>
class base_system
{
public:
protected:
	std::map<int, T> m_components;
};

class spacial_component : public base_component
{
public:
};

class spacial_system : public base_system<spacial_component>
{

};

 

This way I was hoping the base_system class would create an std::map with the components for every component system.

 

What I am wondering is if it is valid to design it like this and then use polymorphism like the following:

 

spacial_system ss;

base_system<base_component>* bs = (base_system<base_component>*) ss;

 

My hope would be that this is possible since my entity_system class should store a vector of all available systems for dispatching messages to the systems using virtual functions. I have it implemented in VS 2012 and it works there. Then I tried to use the same code on VS 2010 and got random crashes. I suspect the cast to base_system<base_component>* is not actually valid C++. So my question is, is the cast valid? Should I use another solution?

Edited by abrakadabra
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is equivalent to:
class base_component { int foo; };
class spatial_component : public base_component { int bar, baz; };
std::map<int, spatial_component> spatial_system;
std::map<int, base_component>* base_system = reinterpret_cast<std::map<int, base_component>*>( &spatial_system );
And no, this code is not valid. There's nothing in the specification of std::map that says that you should be able to cast a map of type T1 to a map of type T2 and still have it function.

Consider one reason why this might not work -- imagine inside a container class (like std::map) if you were trying to allocate a storage area for 1000 components. If T=base_component or T=spatial_component, you'd allocate different amounts of memory:
void* storage1 = malloc( sizeof(base_component)*1000 );
void* storage2 = malloc( sizeof(spatial_component)*1000 );
When you cast the container to a different type of T, it no longer has the appropriately sized storage area.
Also, it no longer computes the correct offsets to each of the items inside this storage area:
base_component*    item42_1 = ((char*)storage1) + sizeof(base_component)*42;
spatial_component* item42_2 = ((char*)storage2) + sizeof(spatial_component)*42;
assert( item42_1 != item42_2 );//!!!
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm wondering what you want to achieve with this hierarchy. Isn't the goal of component based design to get away from inheritance as much as possible?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm wondering what you want to achieve with this hierarchy. Isn't the goal of component based design to get away from inheritance as much as possible?

The goal is for every component system contain the components without having to define the std::map<int, component> and accessory methods in every system. That is 100's of lines of cut and paste for every component system (create_component(), component_exists(), etc).

 

Thank you Hodgman for your help, I will rethink my approach.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

template <class T>
class base_system
{
public:
protected:
	std::map<int, T> m_components;
};

Since you probably want to use your components in more then one system, the system itself might not be the best place to store your different components.

 

 

I'm wondering what you want to achieve with this hierarchy. Isn't the goal of component based design to get away from inheritance as much as possible?

It is a good way to get rid of a lot of inheritance-chains between your different object types, which may lead to code which wont even be used in some objects, but it doesn't mean you should avoid inheritance everywhere, having a basic interface for your systems and components is, depending on your implementation, probably a good idea.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The goal is for every component system contain the components without having to define the std::map and accessory methods in every system. That is 100's of lines of cut and paste for every component system (create_component(), component_exists(), etc).

,>

 

Ah okay, seems I haven't had enough coffee yet. biggrin.png

But why would you need the upcast to the base system? Could you derive base system from a type agnostic interface that has create_component etc. return the base component type and then downcast that if you need to?

 

// Pseudocode

interface BaseComponentSystem {
    BaseComponent* createComponent();
    bool hasComponent(id componentId);
}

class SpecialComponentSystem<T> : public BaseComponentSystem {
    map<int, T> components;
    BaseComponent* createComponent() {
        return components.add(generateID(), new T());
    }
    // ...
}
Edited by Madhed
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your entity_system class could store a Map of systems. The Map would use the component type as the key.

 

Pseudo code

public class entity_system
{
    private Map<Class<?>, base_system<?> systemMap;

    public void registerSystem(Class<T> componentType, base_system<T> system)
    {
        systemMap.put(componentType, system);
    }

    public <T> base_system<T> getSystem(class<T> componentType)
    {
        return systemMap.get(componentType);
    }
}
Edited by de_mattT
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the poster who said that systems probably aren't the best place to store your components. Chances are you'll have systems that need to access multiple component types. Similarly, it doesn't really make sense for a system to have methods like createComponent, componentExists, etc... 

 

Instead these methods could be part of the class that holds onto the various systems, or some parent "entity manager" class that holds onto the entities and the various component containers (and the necessary component containers can be passed to each system in the system's constructor, say).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0