Would general software (and possibly hardware) architecture be better? If you want to throw a use case in, then I would choose MMO Game Visual&Textual&Stored Language/Engine/Maker. View as in Model-View-Controller. I want to browse, play, edit, debug, administer, configure, ... discrete, differential and perhaps continuous games. I'd like Concrete Models to be implemented in a variety of formats/languages, databases and network protocols, and an Abstract Model, which can be interfaced with a variety of controllers and views. In other words, I think any game engine should be able to plug into this architecture, with some stovepiping, as well as any existing view from various game engines (2D, 2.5D, 3D, command line, etc). Ultimately, I'd like to define the MVC interfaces (not classes) for game engines. But perhaps someone has already done this?
With my previous email, I am merely trying to categorize fundamental UI views to exist into groups...I didn't ask for a huge list, but something similar to how SQL has been broken down into DDL and DML, and further into individual SQL statements. Many types of UI views already mirror the language in the database. What other types of UI views are possible, and can we create an ontology of them? I haven't really figured out how shading languages fit into all of this. I probably need to spend sometime with them. On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 5:02 PM, Julian Leviston <jul...@leviston.net> wrote: > I'm a bit confused - general architecture of what, exactly? Sorry if this > is obvious. The organisation? The artefact that VPRI will eventually > produce? or FoNC itself? > > What is a "view" here? It appears to be inverted for your use. Surely > REASON comes before PROCESS, doesn't it? (That is, rather than focus on the > processes, or applications that a user will be focussing on, why not focus > on the things that the people are trying to achieve). > > That is, in the process going to the bank to get some money out, the > reason is surely king - it's the driver... and that's to get money out so I > can go and buy food. > > Julian > > On 09/12/2012, at 3:09 AM, John Carlson <yottz...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > So I was just designing a generic architecture presentation, and I came > up with 5 different types of views. Are there more? > > > > Editor (programmer, designer, scripter) > > Debugger (programmer) > > Browser (end user, player, sharing) > > Configuration (setting property lists) > > Administration (ACLs, grant, revoke, capabilities, upgrading schema) > > > > What are the FoNC thoughts on supporting all these views? What's the > best approach for children? On one of my projects, we combined the Editor, > Debugger and Browser into a single view , which we called the workbench (or > recorder), then we added views for various tools we wanted to incorporate. > If we would have had a GUI builder, we probably would have had > Configuration. What I don't know how to do is incorporate Administration, > except by providing capabilities to share behavior and structure. How does > the user interface for capabilities appear in FoNC? > > > > John > > _______________________________________________ > > fonc mailing list > > fonc@vpri.org > > http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc > > _______________________________________________ > fonc mailing list > fonc@vpri.org > http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc >
_______________________________________________ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
