Re: Complex object graph and "this" escaping constructor.
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen wrote:
Daniel Pitts <newsgroup.spamfilter@virtualinfinity.net> writes:
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen wrote:
Really, a computer is an aspect of a Robot, but it is complex enough
that I'd like to separate it out. A robot also has a weapon,
heatsink, engine, shield, etc... The computer is the one that
actuates all of these, so needs a reference either to those, or to the
computer which owns them.
Ah. I still think the computer could exist on its own, and it should
then accept references to the parts it really needs, and the Robot,
which is the concept combining the parts, injects references to its
parts into the computer when it is built.
Until the computer is placed inside a robot, it won't have any parts
to control.
Yes, I'm a fan of dependency injection :)
I'm a fan of DI, but more specifically (or is it generally) a fan of
inversion of control.
Is the robot any more than the sum of its parts?
Of course, I realized after-the-fact that I should probably just use
an event driven system instead. Eg. the weapon registers itself as a
listener on the appropriate bus channel of the computer.
That's another approach, which allows even greater decoupling.
The computer doesn't even need to know that there is a recipient for
its events.
Right, and its events will be as generic as Memory at Address 6 set to,
or Port number 16 read.
Thanks for the reply.
--
Daniel Pitts' Tech Blog: <http://virtualinfinity.net/wordpress/>