|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Warp wrote:
> Yeah, that kind of OO programming has always been considered bad design.
Actually, in this case, it kind of makes sense. You want to call draw() on
things with a draw() function, call initialize() on things with an
initialize() function, etc. Basic duck typing.
> If C# offered multiple inheritance (I don't know if it does),
Only via interfaces. Much like Java in that respect.
> then you
> could inherit all the objects you are using from GameComponent and your
> own "base class", which is what the container then contains.
Then everything would be of type GameComponent, and that wouldn't really fix
that I wanted to use both GameComponents and my own stuff. :-)
In other words, I wanted a generic list that would hold both GameComponents
that other people wrote that I don't have the source to, as well as my own
components that have the same routines but a different base class.
> (Of course this solution wouldn't help if you have to store objects
> which have been eg. instantiated by the library framework itself because
> those would not have been inherited from your "base class".)
Oh. Yes, right, that's the problem. Other people are writing those
components. That's what makes them "components." :-)
Altho I found another sample project that the documentation makes it look
like it's using the same framework I want to use (same class names, layouts,
etc), as well as talking about using custom GameComponents as part of it, so
I need to take time to dig into that source and see if they changed the
framework to invoke the right routines of a GameComponent as needed.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Yes, we're traveling together,
but to different destinations.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |