I'am trying to create an UML class diagram for a simple game. I've three inheritance classes (NPC, Player, Monster) and they should interact with each other (e.g. in an attack).
I wonder if I should use interfaces in my simple case. Also how can I expand my diagramm?
Your class Character is specialized into: NPC (Non-Player Character), Player and Monster and you wonder if you'd need an interface:
As a Monster seems to be a non-player character, it should probably inherit from NPC instead of Character
As a human player really is not a character but just happen to be represented by a character in the game, it could be interesting to separate the responsibilities of the Player and the corresponding Character. So you'd have a simple association between the two and not an inheritance. An immediate advantage, is that the player could chose the preferred character to impersonate him/her.
A mediator could be used to manage the interaction between the all the characters in the game. You could create a Colleague interface, and let different classes implement this interface. But if your Colleagues are necessarily all Characters, you could just rely on the superclass as you did.
More generally, an additional interface is a proven approach if you want to decouple classes. You should definitively consider them if you'd develop a game engine that is to be reused in a lot of different games: you'd then have an engine that relies only interfaces that are independent of any specific game. Each game would then pick the relevant classes to implement the interfaces. But for your specific case, it seems to be an overkill.
This being said, the main challenge you'll be confronted with is that you'll end up with deep class hierarchies that'll be difficult to evolve. This is why, the game industry prefers the entity-component-system pattern that prefer composition over inheritance. But this is a different story, and there are full books on that topic ;-)
Related
I'm an university student and I'm trying to do a class diagramm for a very simple client-server game.
The game consist of a online rouge-like when 2 player explore a dungeon. I'm having trouble to identify an easy class diagramm. Should I show in the class diagramm the server class and the client class? What other classes should I add?
Here is what I’ve done so far:
It is recommended to keep class diagrams small and focused on a given topic. This is true for simple games, as it is for complex systems. This leads to have several diagrams that are easy to read rather than one big and extremely complex diagram with all possible classes of your system. It would therefore seem better to keep client and server classes separate in different diagrams.
In the special case of a client-server system, the client and the server might moreover have different designs targetting different technologies. This is one reason more to keep them separate, unless you intend to reuse the same design on both sides, for example if you intend to have a common code base with a rich client.
However, it could be very helpful to you, to use a component diagram, at a higher level than individual classes. Component diagrams allow to focus on the interfaces between the parts of your system and will allow to explain the big picture (e.g. that there is a client and a server and how they are interfaced) before diving into the details.
I have some related interfaces and classes that I want to represent in UML (sorry about the relationships, I don't know how to do it properly with StarUML):
The idea of an interface ISMS implementing IMessage and IStorable, instead of having directly the SMS class implementing itself both interfaces, aims to make the project more modular, maintainable, and easier to test.
Is this a good approach for the design? If so, is this a good way of representing them in an UML Class Diagram or is there a better way to represent an interface and its relationship with other interfaces/classes in UML?
I have a couple of remarks on top of Bruno's already very clear answer.
Your design
The decomposition of the interfaces into IStorable and IMessage seems at first sight to be a sound application of interface segregation principle.
Combining the two interfaces into a reusable ISMS interface instead of directly implementing them in a concrete SMS class will in this regard keep your code more maintainable, since it will easily allow to replace the SMS implementation with an alternative one (which makes sense if you consider that SMS functionality can be platform specific).
The question is however if SMS and email could not be used interchangeably. But only you can answer this question: If your design requires to keep those communication channels distinct (and maybe your real code adds some differences between the two interfaces), it's fine. But if not, it would make sense to allow such interchangeability and replace ISMS and IEmail with a single more general INotification.
Your UML representation
First of all, I'd like to reinforce Bruno's remark about the difference between generalization (plain line) and realization (dotted line).
Maybe I'm old school, but instead of using the circle for the interface, I'd advise for the more conventional interface as with a class box with the keyword «interface» above the name of the interface. Especially if you have properties and operations.
The circle is in my view better suitable for the lollipop notation of an interface. This is very practical when you have no much to say about the interface itself, but want to show what interfaces a class implements (lollipop) or is dependent on (socket). The interfaces details are then defined in another more detailed diagram. You can theoretically merge the two notations in the same diagram, but personally I find it less readable and would not advise it.
Is this a good approach for the design?
I think yes, also because MMS if you add it can also implement ISMS too (may renaming that interface).
For IEmail it is less clear except that simplify Email and other classes working with interfaces to have one interface rather than two
I am pretty sure Christophe will say much more about that :-)
is this a good way of representing them in an UML Class Diagram or is there a better way to represent an interface and its relationship with other interfaces/classes in UML?
the relation to indicate a class implements an interface is a realization (drawn with dotted line), you used a generalization, so also adding MMS :
... ISMS implementing IMessage and IStorable
warning this is not an implementation because ISMS is an interface, same for IEmail, this is why between interfaces the inheritance is supported by a generalization rather than a realization.
I have some related interfaces and classes that I want to represent in UML (sorry about the relationships, I don't know how to do it properly with StarUML):
The idea of an interface ISMS implementing IMessage and IStorable, instead of having directly the SMS class implementing itself both interfaces, aims to make the project more modular, maintainable, and easier to test.
Is this a good approach for the design? If so, is this a good way of representing them in an UML Class Diagram or is there a better way to represent an interface and its relationship with other interfaces/classes in UML?
I have a couple of remarks on top of Bruno's already very clear answer.
Your design
The decomposition of the interfaces into IStorable and IMessage seems at first sight to be a sound application of interface segregation principle.
Combining the two interfaces into a reusable ISMS interface instead of directly implementing them in a concrete SMS class will in this regard keep your code more maintainable, since it will easily allow to replace the SMS implementation with an alternative one (which makes sense if you consider that SMS functionality can be platform specific).
The question is however if SMS and email could not be used interchangeably. But only you can answer this question: If your design requires to keep those communication channels distinct (and maybe your real code adds some differences between the two interfaces), it's fine. But if not, it would make sense to allow such interchangeability and replace ISMS and IEmail with a single more general INotification.
Your UML representation
First of all, I'd like to reinforce Bruno's remark about the difference between generalization (plain line) and realization (dotted line).
Maybe I'm old school, but instead of using the circle for the interface, I'd advise for the more conventional interface as with a class box with the keyword «interface» above the name of the interface. Especially if you have properties and operations.
The circle is in my view better suitable for the lollipop notation of an interface. This is very practical when you have no much to say about the interface itself, but want to show what interfaces a class implements (lollipop) or is dependent on (socket). The interfaces details are then defined in another more detailed diagram. You can theoretically merge the two notations in the same diagram, but personally I find it less readable and would not advise it.
Is this a good approach for the design?
I think yes, also because MMS if you add it can also implement ISMS too (may renaming that interface).
For IEmail it is less clear except that simplify Email and other classes working with interfaces to have one interface rather than two
I am pretty sure Christophe will say much more about that :-)
is this a good way of representing them in an UML Class Diagram or is there a better way to represent an interface and its relationship with other interfaces/classes in UML?
the relation to indicate a class implements an interface is a realization (drawn with dotted line), you used a generalization, so also adding MMS :
... ISMS implementing IMessage and IStorable
warning this is not an implementation because ISMS is an interface, same for IEmail, this is why between interfaces the inheritance is supported by a generalization rather than a realization.
I'm in the process of creating a hangman game for Android, but I'm unsure about some parts of the class diagram. I have an Alphabet Interface With Methods for resetting, check if a letter is guessed, and marking it as guessed if it is not previously guessed.
The app will support both the Norwegian and English alphabet which means the the implementation of Methods will differ some.
In the class diagram, is it fine to leave the classes implementing the Interface empty or should I never do it this way unless they add New functionality?
being part of
Generally speaking your class diagram should contain as much detail as is needed to get the full picture without including every little detail. Someone unfamiliar with your project should be able to take it and implement it without asking too many questions.
If you have classes who's only purpose is to be a union of interfaces, those should be included in the diagram if they should be instantiated, even if they are empty. But generally they would not be empty..they would at least have a few members to keep track of things.
I am messing around in a Unity3D, making a 2D project. I want to create my own code architecture for Unity's component based system.
As I don't want to create God-Controller scripts, and being more into code resposibilities separation solutions ( having MVC, MVVM in mind ), I am trying to find some good solution.
My first take looks like this:
GameObject is created from:
Unity Components - for ex. SpriteRenderer, Animator, Rigidbody2D
Controller - The only resposibility of this component is to handle Unity functions ( like
Update, FixedUpdate, OnCollision ), and executes functions from model.
Models|Proxies - this components contains data, functions to manipulate game object unity components, and dispatching events to outer world.
I am wondering what do you think about this aproach, what are your code habbits in Unity3D projects, and what solutions worked for you.
While I have learned and taught MVC and similar approaches, I find that when designing game architectures one usually has to be a bit more flexible. In unity I generally take the following approach.
I will create a few GameObjects to hold the necessary global logic. This would be things like the overarching state machine, networking, and sometimes control input. If anything needs to persist between scenes it will go here. Each object typically has one component script for game logic and one for temp/debugging functions that gets turned off or removed when not needed.
If the project has fixed levels I will make each level a scene and I will store level layout and other level specific information in the scene. If I am doing a more procedural project I will create a "LevelGenerator" object with component scripts that build and populate the level at runtime.
If I am building a system that has lots of mostly independent agents (e.g. enemy creatures) I try to keep the game logic and necessary state information for each agent as close to it in the hierarchy as possible. For example, the agent's position and rotation would be stored in it's transform. I might store the agents health, ammunition, speed, and current status effects along with the functions for moving, shooting, healing, and death in a component script on the agent's GameObject.
While there are countless other approaches that could work, I like this approach for a few reasons:
It saves me from having to manually manage tons of data access in a central script. If I need to know where all the monsters are, I can just keep a list of game objects rather than using custom data types.
When the agent gets destroyed all the local data goes with it. (No complex functions to clean up dead agents.)
From a game logic perspective (on the projects I typically work on) it usually makes sense that each agent would "know" about itself and not about everyone else.
I can still use all the OO goodies like polymorphism etc. when necessary.
This response likely says more about how I approach game design and software architecture than general best practices but it might be useful.
One note on encapsulation in Unity. Every component script you add to a game object has a bit of overhead. If your scene has a couple of dozen agents in it, than this is not a big deal and I would recommend trying to keep things as OO and modular as possible. If you are building a system with hundreds or thousands of active agents, cutting the components per agent from two to one can mean quite a bit of saved frame time.
I use another approach.
I don't use many controllers attached to game objects. I just have some kind of GameController which creates other structures.
I have separate project shared between other games. This project contain design patterns and is built before main project did. I widely use State, Observer, Builder, ObjectPool etc. patterns to make my code clear and simple.
Another reason I use such approach is performance optimization. I create objects once and then reuse them. Also I do once such things as gameObject.GetComponent etc. When I need to create many objects using the same prefab I use ObjectPool to avoid CreateInstance/Destroy.
My logical game objects (actors) communicate each other using Observer pattern. My only one GameController just send events like Awake, Update to actors. Some objects have StateController which retranslate events like Awake and Update to current object state. This is useful to separate behavior of each object state.
I have component system architecture similar to Unity. And I also have services like InputService that can be accessed via ServiceLocator in any object.
I have also points, but the idea is clear and easy maintainable code. This is difficult with standard Unity controllers and SendMessage approach.