RE: [Adonthell-devel] Hello Hello

[Mike Avery]

> > 1. Magical enchantment (through several possible means I would
> > imagine) 2. Prop (item) attributes
> > 3. Potions and items
> > 4. Feats?
> 
> Yeah, that would cover everything. Wich probably means that all those
> have at least part of their code in common as they practically have
> equal effects.
 
Right.

 
> What I currently have in mind would consist of (at least) 3 
> components:
> 
> * The item (or spell or feat) that contains the properties. 
> * The effect that knows how to apply certain properties to 
> character(s).
> * The manager that collects all effects and applies them in a 
> sensible 
>   fashion.

Bingo.

 
> There is a strong relation between items and effects, as items with a
> certain effect have to provide the properties the effect depends upon.
> (There is also the question whether the effect has to 
> visualize itself,
> or whether that is left to yet another object. As effects might take
> place off-screen, I assume latter.)
> 
> There's also a relation between manager and effects, as all 
> effects have
> to provide the interface required by the manager.
> 
> 
> That is more or less the direction in which I would go if I were to
> code the stuff. What's your favourite, Mike?

I completely agree here.  I was hoping this would be your preference.  I
think this approach is the best design decision, and offers the best chance
for sanity as things get more complex.  When considering the desire to keep
data and code separated, this is a natural choice.

I'm going to finish reading the docs and go over what info I can glean from
the source.  Once I'm done this I'll have a better idea of where we are
versus where we want to be.  Then maybe I'll be able to do something useful.

Mike