[Freecol-developers] path finding and carrier

Hi folks, just looking at Unit::search() - the documentation states that there can be given an optonal carrier which is the unit can use. Does that mean, that land units can automatically can employ a ship when ordered across the sea ? If so, does that also work w/ wagons on a trade route ?

Re: [Freecol-developers] lifetime of Map object

On 09.12.2016 06:24, Michael T. Pope wrote: Hi, > (c) is obviously a win in terms of making things easier to read. The other > two are nice, but I doubt the existing locking is a serious problem, not sure whether it's actually problem (IOW: notable slowdown), but we for now require a lock on

Re: [Freecol-developers] killing players and tile ownership

On Fri, 9 Dec 2016 03:04:37 +0100 "Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" wrote: > I'm just having a look at ServerPlayer::csKill(). IIRC it sends out > CS'es for all the individual changes caused by killing a player, eg. > removing it's settlements, diplomatic relationships,

Re: [Freecol-developers] lifetime of Map object

On Fri, 9 Dec 2016 00:28:29 +0100 "Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" wrote: > I'm currently reworking the (per-player) visibility map, by > a) doing it (mostly) lockless > b) using BitSet instead of the huge boolean array > c) encapsulating the whole logic into an own

Re: [Freecol-developers] UI Testing for #43

On Thu, 8 Dec 2016 21:29:37 -0600 Caleb Williams wrote: > > For testing improvement request #43, we're having difficulty encountering > the looting panel for capturedGoodsDialog. > > I've only encountered the CaptureGoodsDialog when attacking ships. Caleb is correct, and

Re: [Freecol-developers] UI Testing for #43

> For testing improvement request #43, we're having difficulty encountering the looting panel for capturedGoodsDialog. I've only encountered the CaptureGoodsDialog when attacking ships. In theory it could effect any Unit (net.sf.freecol.common.model) though it's only a Carrier with goods in its

[Freecol-developers] killing players and tile ownership

Hi folks, I'm just having a look at ServerPlayer::csKill(). IIRC it sends out CS'es for all the individual changes caused by killing a player, eg. removing it's settlements, diplomatic relationships, etc. Do we really need that traffic at all ? Why not just sending a kill player notification

[Freecol-developers] lifetime of Map object

Hi folks, I'm currently reworking the (per-player) visibility map, by a) doing it (mostly) lockless b) using BitSet instead of the huge boolean array c) encapsulating the whole logic into an own class As it obviously needs the map dimensions (coming from the Map object), I'm wondering whether

Re: [Freecol-developers] internal getters vs performance

On 08.12.2016 22:02, Michael T. Pope wrote: >> Should we instead make them final or use the underlying fields >> directly ? > > We could. Patches welcome. This is low priority stuff though. Okay, I'll do that when touching these places for other reasons. --mtx

[Freecol-developers] UI Testing for #43

Hi again, For testing improvement request #43, we're having difficulty encountering the looting panel for capturedGoodsDialog. We've realized that you need to declare your nation's independence before you encounter these panels, which we assume will take a substantial amount of gameplay. Is

Re: [Freecol-developers] internal getters vs performance

On Thu, 8 Dec 2016 17:50:41 +0100 "Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" wrote: > we've got a lot of trivila getters that are heavily used within > their classes. As they're public and not final, the compiler can't > inline them (it must assume that they might be overwritten

[Freecol-developers] internal getters vs performance

Hi folks, we've got a lot of trivila getters that are heavily used within their classes. As they're public and not final, the compiler can't inline them (it must assume that they might be overwritten by derived classes), which of course introduces a performance penalty. Should we instead make