Re: Shared game-data

Alvin Ryder wrote:

> Alfredo Novoa wrote:
>

>>>Alfredo, exactly which part is wrong?
>>
>>This:

>>>>>OTOH game objects contain some atomic types but they also contain
>>>>>pointers, other objects, trees, collections ... which is all very
>>>>>non-atomic and very non-normalized.
>>
>>To work with pointers is always painful and they might be eliminated
>>with the RM. Trees are very well handled by the RM, and relation is the
>>most convenient collection to manage data. Normalization consists in
>>the elimination of some database design errors, and it is always
>>possible.

One can eliminate them from logical discourse with no cost at all. At the physical level and internal to the dbms, one will always have pointers of some sort.

>>>Are you saying objects used in games, or any OOP, don't need to contain
>>>references to other objects, trees or collections?
>>
>>They don't need to contain pointers. They might refer to other objects
>>using values.

Nothing says there is any additional physical indirection. I suggest you pay more attention to the requirement for physical independence as a means to separate the concern for correctness from the concern for performance. Received on Mon May 01 2006 - 15:45:00 CEST