I'm currently developing a multiplayer cardgame for android, with libgdx as the game engine. My question is more generel tho.
I'm not sure whats the best practice for handling callbacks in this architecture. My controller is a big statemachine, that checks inputs over and over while beeing called from the render() method of the gameengine.
I have two main callbacks, userinput from the gui, and network callbacks from the android google play services part.
Currently these callback methode/ inputListeners just set member variables, which are check by getter methods from the controller/statemachine, for example i call this from the controller over and over, check if its != null and proceed if it is.
#Override
public Boolean allPlayersConnected() {
Boolean allConnected = null;
if (startGame != null) {
allConnected = startGame;
startGame = null;
}
return allConnected;
}
The startGame "flag" beeing set by callbacks from the google play services api.
I dont know if this is good practice, doesnt look like.
I could call controller methods from the google play services callbacks that set a controller member variable, and check this in each render loop, but thats just moving the variable.
I could also design the controller as an observer of those events, but what am i going to do in the update method inside the controller thats beeing called if an event happens. i dont think i want change stats in these, even if i can access the currrent state. Im spreading state code all over the place with this, some in different parts of a huge update method and some in the actual state machine code. Just setting a member variable in the update method is quite similar to the think i did above.
Another thing would be, to directly change controller state from the callback methods. That would be less code, less variables and a little faster, but i think i'd destroy the MVP concept, cause i take away the control from the controller and let i.e. the gui change the state of the controller.
Any input on this ?
Edit:
The more i think about it, the more i think a combination of observer and command pattern is the way to go.
So i could indeed cut big part of the current state machine and pack it into the observer update() method. Instead of sending the commands through a big command enum, i could create command object with the information available, and pass them to the observer(controller), where i check the command as viable, and call the execute with the information needed to be excecuted, eg the model interface.
First, I think whether your commands are enums or command objects is independent of the main problem here -- which is how to connect user and network input to state management.
The most common game architecture I've seen is an update loop that checks input, iterates the game simulation, and then renders a frame. In the MVC world, this structure just synchronizes those steps; you still have an encapsulated view and data model, with the controller (the game loop) serving as a a bridge between those two worlds.
Input, whether from the local user or one over the net, is generally treated as a request to modify game state. That is, the controller (as the first part of its loop) reads in pending input messages and processes them, modifying state as it goes. This way, the code that changes state is in one place: that controller. You are right, spreading state-modification code throughout the app is a bad practice; basically, it's not MVC.
In other words, all of your callbacks should convert the input to commands and stick them into a queue. You don't want to synchronize the controller -- whose job it is to modify state -- with those input callbacks. You have no idea when input will occur relative to the game loop, so it's best to decouple them. Serializing input processing with game simulation should also make your logic simpler.
You have some choice in how to connect the callbacks to the controller; a shared queue (where one side writes into it and the other reads out from it) is a strong pattern and easy to make thread-safe.
Related
Let's say I've got a domain class, which has functions, that are to be called in a sequence. Each function does its job but if the previous step in the sequence is not done yet, it throws an error. The other way is that each function completes the step required for it to run, and then executes its own logic. I feel that this way is not a good practice, since I am adding multiple responsibilities, and the caller wont know what all operations can happen when he invokes a method.
My question is, how to handle dependent scenarios in DDD. Is it the responsibility of the caller to invoke the methods in the right sequence? Or do we make the methods handle the dependent operations before it's own logic?
Is it the responsibility of the caller to invoke the methods in the right sequence?
It's ok if those methods have a business meaning. For example the client may book a flight, and then book a hotel room. Both of those is something the client understands, and it is the client's logic to call them in this sequence. On the other hand, inserting the reservation into the database, then committing (or whatever) is technical. The client should not have to deal with that at all. Or "initializing" an object, then calling other methods, then calling "close".
Requiring a sequence of technical calls is a form of temporal coupling, it is considered a bad practice, and is not directly related to DDD.
The solution is to model the problem better. There is probably a higher level use-case the caller wants achieved with this call sequence. So instead of publishing the individual "steps" required, just support the higher use-case as a whole.
In general you should always design with the goal to get any sequence of valid calls to actually mean something (as far as the language allows).
Update: A possible model for the mentioned "File" domain:
public interface LocalFile {
RemoteFile upload();
}
public interface RemoteFile {
RemoteFile convert(...);
LocalFile download();
}
From my point of view, what you are describing is the orchestration of domain model operations. That's the job of the application layer, the layer upon domain model. You should have an application service that would call the domain model methods in the right sequence, and it also should take into account whether some step has left any task undone, and in such case, tell the next step to perform it.
TLDR; Scroll to the bottom for the answer, but the backstory will give some good context.
If the caller into your domain must know the order in which to call things, then you have missed an opportunity to encapsulate business logic in your domain, which is a symptom of an anemic domain.
#RobertBräutigam made a very good point:
Requiring a sequence of technical calls is a form of temporal coupling, it is considered a bad practice, and is not directly related to DDD.
This is true, but it is worse when you do it with your domain model because non-domain concerns get intermixed with domain concerns. Intent becomes lost in a sea of non business logic. If you can, you look for a higher-order aggregate that encapsulates the ordering. To borrow Robert's example, rather than booking a flight then a hotel room, and forcing that on the client, you could have a Vacation aggregate take both and validate it.
I know that sounds wrong in your case, and I suspect you're right. There's a clear dependency that can't happen all at once, so we can't be the end of the story. When you have a clear dependency with intermediate transactions that must occur before the "final" state, we have... orchestration (think sagas, distributed transactions, domain events and all that goodness).
What you describe with file operations spans across transactions. The manipulation (state change) of a domain is transactional at each point in a distributed transaction, but is not transactional overall. So when #choquero70 says
you are describing is the orchestration of domain model operations. That's the job of the application layer, the layer upon domain model.
that's also correct. Orchestration is key. Each step must manipulate the state of the domain once, and once only, and leave it in a valid state, but it OK for there to be multiple steps.
Each of those individual points along the timeline are valid moments in the state of your domain.
So, back to your model. If you expose a single interface with multiple possible calls to all steps, then you leave yourself open to things being called out of order. Make this impossible or at least improbable. Orchestration is not just about what to do, but what to prevent from happening. Create smaller interfaces/classes to avoid accidentally increasing the "surface area" of what could be misused accidentally.
In this way, you are guiding the caller on what to do next by feeding them valid intermediate states. But, and this is the important part, the burden on what to call in what order is not on the caller. Sure, the caller could know what to do, but why force it.
Your basic algorithm is the same: upload, transform, download.
Is it the responsibility of the caller to invoke the methods in the right sequence?
Not exactly. Is the responsibility of the caller to choose from legitimate choices given the state of your domain. It's "your" responsibility to present these choices via business methods on your correctly modeled moment/interval aggregate suitable for the caller to use.
Or do we make the methods handle the dependent operations before it's own logic?
If you've setup orchestration correctly, this won't be necessary. But it does make sense to validate anyway.
On a side note, each step of the orchestration you do should be very linear in nature. I tell my developers to be suspicious of an orchestration step that has an if statement in it. If there's an if it's likely better to be part of another orchestration step or encapsulated in business logic.
I have an action as follows:
SomeActions.doAction1(){
//..dispatch event "started"...
//...do some process....
FewActions.doAnotherAction(); //CAN WE DO THIS
//...do something more....
//..dispatch event "completed"..
}
While the above works with no problems, just wondering, if it is valid according to flux pattern/standard or is there a better way.
Also, I guess calling Actions from Stores are a bad idea. Correct me if I am wrong.
Yes, calling an Action within another Action is a bad practice. Actions should be atomic; all changes in the Stores should be in response to a single action. They should describe one thing that happened in the real world: the user clicked on a button, the server responded with data, the screen refreshed, etc.
Most people get confused by Actions when they are thinking about them as imperative instructions (first do A, then do B) instead of descriptions of what happened and the starting point for reactive processes.
This is why I recommend to people that they name their Action types in the past tense: BUTTON_CLICKED. This reminds the programmer of the fundamentally externally-driven, descriptive nature of Actions.
Actions are like a newspaper that gets delivered to all the stores, describing what happened.
Calling Actions from Stores is almost always the wrong thing to do. I can only think of one exception: when the Store responds to the first Action by starting up an asynchronous process. When the async process completes, you want to fire off a second Action. This is the case with a XHR call to the server. But the better way is to put the XHR handling code into a Utils module. The store can then respond to the first Action by calling a method in the Utils module, and then the Utils module has the code to call the second Action when the server response comes back.
I am looking for a pub/sub mechanism that behaves like a promise but can resolve multiple times, and behaves like an event except if you subscribe after a notification has happened it triggers with the most recent value.
I am aware of notify, but deferred.notify is order-sensitive, so in that way it behaves just like an event. eg:
d.notify('notify before'); // Not observed :(
d.promise.progress(function(data){ console.log(data) });
d.notify('notify after'); // Observed
setTimeout(function(){ d.notify('notify much later') }, 100); // Also Observed
fiddle: http://jsfiddle.net/foLhag3b/
The notification system I'd like is a good fit for a UI component that should update to reflect the state of the data behind it. In these cases, you don't want to care about whether the data has arrived yet or not, and you want updates when they come in.
Maybe this is similar to Immediate mode UIs, but is distinct because it is message based.
The state of the art for message based UI updating, as far as I'm aware, is something which uses a promise or callback to initialize, then also binds an update event:
myUIComponent.gotData(model.data);
model.onUpdate(myUIComponent.gotData); // doing two things is 2x teh workz :(
I don't want to have to do both. I don't think anyone should have to, the use case is common enough to abstract.
model.whenever(myUIComponent.gotData); // yay one intention === one line of code
I could build a mechanism to do what I want, but I wanted to see if a pub/sub mechanism like this already exists. A lot of smart people have done a lot in CS and I figure this concept must exist, I just am looking for the name of it.
To be clear, I'm not looking to change an entire framework, say to Angular or React. I'm looking only for a pub/sub mechanism. Preferably an implementation of a known concept with a snazzy name like notifr or lemme-kno or touch-base.
You'll want to have a look at (functional) reactive programming. The concept you are looking for is known as a Behavior or Signal in FRP. It models the change of a value over time, and can be inspected at any time (continuously holds a value, in contrast to a stream that discretely fires events).
var ui = state.map(render); // whenever state updates, so does ui with render() result
Some popular libraries in JS are Bacon and Rx, which use their own terminology however: you'll find properties and observables.
I'm trying to understand Flux pattern.
I believe that in any good design the app should consist of relatively independent and universal (and thus reusable) components glued together by specific application logic.
In Flux there are domain-specific Stores encapsulating data and domain logic. These could be possibly reused in another application for the same domain.
I assume there should also be application-specific Store(s) holding app state and logic. This is the glue.
Now, I try to apply this to imaginary "GPS Tracker" app:
...
When a user clicks [Stop Tracking] button, corresponding ViewController raises STOP_CLICK.
AppState.on(STOP_CLICK):
dispatch(STOP_GEOLOCATION)
dispatch(STOP_TRACKING)
GeolocationService.on(STOP_GEOLOCATION):
stopGPS(); this.on = false; emit('change')
TrackStore.on(STOP_TRACKING):
saveTrack(); calcStatistics(); this.tracking = false; emit('change')
dispatch(START_UPLOAD)
So, I've got an event snowball.
It is said that in Flux one Action should not raise another.
But I do not understand how this could be done.
I think user actions can't go directly to domain Stores as these should be UI-agnostic.
Rather, AppState (or wherever the app logic lives) should translate user actions into domain actions.
How to redesign this the Flux way?
Where should application logic go?
Is that correct to try to keep domain Stores independent of the app logic?
Where is the place for "services"?
Thank you.
All of the application logic should live in the stores. They decide how they should respond to a particular action, if at all.
Stores have no setters. The only way into the stores is via a dispatched action, through the callback the store registered with the dispatcher.
Actions are not setters. Try not to think of them as such. Actions should simply report on something that happened in the real world: the user interacted with the UI in a certain way, the server responded in a certain way, etc.
This looks a lot like setter-thinking to me:
dispatch(STOP_GEOLOCATION)
dispatch(STOP_TRACKING)
Instead, dispatch the thing that actually happened: STOP_TRACKING_BUTTON_CLICKED (or TRACKING_STOPPED, if you want to be UI-agnostic). And then let the stores figure out what to do about it. All the stores will receive that action, and they can all respond to it, if needed. The code you have responding to two different actions should be responding to the same action.
Often, when we find that we want dispatch within a dispatch, we simply need to back up to the original thing that happened and make the entire application respond to that.
I'm still new to C# I use Unity3d. I'm wanting to learn about events, I've been reading on them and have the gist of them. My friend recommended me to use this event handler in unity
http://www.willrmiller.com/?p=87
But I really don't know how to use it because.
None of it derives from MonoBehaviour, so how could I trigger the event with a keypress or a Unity condition when it's not deriving from Unity?
In the event class SomethingHappenedEvent I don't even know what parameters would go in there, because I'm new to events. My guess would be a condition like if a key is pressed or something in Unity happened. But that goes back to 1: it doesn't derive from MonoBehavior so I don't know how to do that.
To sum it up how is this event system even getting ran because Unity3d from what I've done so far requires a script to be on a GameObject.
So can someone tell me how to get this working in Unity and better understand events, especially in Unity3d?
None of it derives from monobehavior, so how could I trigger the event with a keypress or a unity condition when its not deriving from unity?
As the post states, you use
Events.instance.Raise(new SomethingHappenedEvent());
That is, if something happens (your keypress or a certain condition) you raise the event. You tell the manager that something happened, and it will take care of telling all interested parties (the listeners) about it.
From reading your question I assume that is your primary source of confusion. This code will not automagically connect to any events. What it does is provide a framework for you to put events into. And you can specify when objects should listen to which events. Then the framework will take care of informing all the listeners whenever an event happens that they might be interested in. An event that you raise.
This is useful in the sense that you don't have to find those objects/entities/GameObjects that you want to notify. Nor do you have to use broadcast messages or solutions like that.
In the event class SomethingHappenedEvent I don't even know what parameters would go in there, because I'm new to events, my guess would be a condition like if a key is pressed or something in unity happened.
Whatever you want really. You are creating your own event. So what information is relevant for your own event? Is it a HitEvent, where you want to know which enemy was hit? Then store the enemy. Is there an event where location is important? Then store the location. It's up to you.
To sum it up how is this event system even getting ran because unity3d from what I've done so far requires a script to be on a gameobject.
This class relies on the concept of a singleton. It has a static instance. This will be initialized whenever you call your Events.instance.Raise(new SomethingHappenedEvent());for the first time. From wherever you call it. The relevant code here is
public static Events instance
{
get
{
if (eventsInstance == null)
{
eventsInstance = new Events();
}
return eventsInstance;
}
}
That is, when trying to get the instance, if it's not created yet create it and then return it. If it was already created, then just return the existing instance. There is no requirement to make this a component and add it to a GameObject.