Re: [crossfire] 2.0 object-type refactoring

2006-10-30 Thread Mark Wedel
Alex Schultz wrote: It may be better working on getting all of this infrastructure/callback methods in place, and implementing one type of object using them instead of focusing on the specific callback method (the web page mentioned doing all the apply stuff). Why? That way, if

Re: [crossfire] 2.0 object-type refactoring

2006-10-30 Thread Nicolas Weeger (Laposte)
Hello. For a while now I've been throwing the idea of separating the server's object-type-specific code by object types. Currently things are rather disorganized with code for how an object type works being spread all around the code. I plan to begin to implement the plan on the following

Re: [crossfire] 2.0 object-type refactoring

2006-10-30 Thread Mark Wedel
Alex Schultz wrote: Well, the way I was thinking of doing it, would be to replace specific calls to apply, drop, etc as they are sprinkled throughout the code, and keep common code such as you say, in a common subdirectory of the types directory, and then have the callback called by

Re: [crossfire] 2.0 object-type refactoring

2006-10-30 Thread Alex Schultz
Mark Wedel wrote: Alex Schultz wrote: Well, the way I was thinking of doing it, would be to replace specific calls to apply, drop, etc as they are sprinkled throughout the code, and keep common code such as you say, in a common subdirectory of the types directory, and then have the