On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 15:27:57 -0500, "Eric S. Raymond" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Users don't want to view their saves by campaign type. They want to > view them by *game* -- where a game is a sequence of saves (or > possibly a tree of saves) derived from a common campaign-start > ancestor. The difference between these two models is that a player > might well have more than one game in progress associated with the > same campaign. Say, one on EASY and one on HARD. Or, a developer > might be running more than one game in the same campaign because > the games represent different debugging cases.
I think the question is do we want to be storing meta data about save games in the save games' path names? We might want to do this to help humans choose the right save game. But I expect that instances of people meddling with save game files using OS commands is going to be rare. We might also do it to make having data available to Wesnoth more efficiently (without having to open and parse save game files). I think that there might be other views of save games that people want, that we will want to faciliate. For example someone may want to see a list of only their latest save game for each map. Or maybe all of their single player save games. So I think it would be a good idea to keep in mind that other filters may be desired in the future when doing the design. For the unique ids, why not using cryptographic hashes? Save files don't change (at least not when accessed through Wesnoth) and if two identical save files have the same id, we aren't going to care if they were created independently. _______________________________________________ Wesnoth-dev mailing list Wesnoth-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/wesnoth-dev
