ENIGMA Development Environment

Certainly not. Our inner workings have just been reduced to a clusterfuck again, as usual.

Fixed, Griggs.

I understand that much; all I'm saying is that those files have been in there for a while and they're still identical. But I haven't said anything about it personally because TGMG told me early on that they'd be changed at some point.

I meant you didn't elaborate on "whatever the fuck Java uses..."

And where did I say logic then describe presentation? The logic tier adds shit before it makes it to be presented. I was trying to compare screen presentation to output file presentation; literally for presenting data to later instances or to ENIGMA.

That is the very image I as looking at.

I appreciate how you left the MDI definition untouched.

Anyway, I agree with your outer tiers, but I fail to see how the logic tier doesn't encompass the read and write functions. Thinking I had the concept wrong, I went to Wikipedia, and its example basically confirmed it; they gave the example of a cash register. The presentation tier was the display (the Mesh GUI), data was the sales database (the vertex buffer, metrics, and resource name); the logic tier added it all together for the display. The display is just an output, as saving is. The logic tier would simply provide an accessor for standardized access and, at your option, for writing. You can justify it either by asserting that the GUI and a save file are no different (multiple display tier entities) or by simply calling it allowing a method to merge the extension's data tier into the parent's. Doesn't matter to me anyway, really.

They may have been moved, or they may have, as you and XKCD pointed out, been redone to meet a new requirement. Which ones are you looking at? We've been making a point of removing or re-implementing them lately.

I feel the same way about XML, and I felt the same way about INI before I saw it was basically GNOME's .desktop format.

YAML is actually pretty easy to parse, but parsers do backflips and are relatively gross in concept. @Rusky I didn't consider offering multiple formats; I think we should have the specification call for it, but I personally don't want to include multiple parsers. Are you suggesting that the file should give a doctype, or that (1) the reader will be expecting the same format the writer uses and (2) an intervening human would be able to tell which format it was? I'm thinking the latter; doctypes are gross.

As for JSON, I recall that it was very similar to YAML. In fact, looking at sample JSON, it seems that YAML is just an ugly mix between Python and JSON (it uses Python's indentation grouping instead of {} like most of everything else).

So basically,
XML is out of the question unless the specification is to allow flexible formats (in which case ENIGMA will =NOT= be using XML anyway),
JSON is just better-known and more stable YAML and would be a practical consideration (I'll have to modify my YAML parser or strap on a standard one).
INI is an older format and would require compromise on both ends.
YAML makes Ism's skin crawl (the full spec makes my skin crawl) and would involve sizey compromise on either end to support fully, and
eYAML is a concise implementation of YAML that makes only Ism's skin crawl but would be too specific for a general format, thus requiring formats to be optional as per Rusky's proposal.

I am, in general, all for having the text format be up to the extension. However, it seems messy to specify that there is no specified format for these text files, and messier to constrain it to four or so well-known formats without having some doctype, which are nasty.
Should we settle on some means of allowing multiple formats, we still have to choose one for LGM extensions to use (I personally doubt we'll use more than one for just ENIGMA, though we should leave it open for future users to do so).

Once ENIGMA has its own format, it will finally be possible for it to include its own resources in outputted game files. That being the case, it is time, as Luis indicated earlier, that LGM offers a less painful method of defining custom resources.

Notice: I am in no way an expert on Java. I speak in this thread solely on authority of designing the C++ backend to potential extensions, which here is not much authority at all. My suggestions are to be taken not as a suggestion for the Java code behind the mechanism, but as the overall concept of the goals thereof.

That said, I think we should first define the goals simply in terms of what has been shown to be needed thus far (namely, by Luis's "Panes" extension proposal and my "Libraries" proposal which will conclude this message).

Before that, terms. For the purpose of this message (feel free to adopt them for your own), the following lexicons will be used:
"Loader" refers to the mechanism which will load extensions to the LateralGM interface.
"Extension" refers to a single unspecified object the Loader is loading.
"Component" refers to an interface element, such as a button or a graphic.
"Node" refers to a resource tree Component.
"MDI" refers to whatever the fuck that Java thing is that houses all the other editor windows.

• The Loader must allow the addition of a Node or group of Nodes (represented by a folder) into the resource tree.
• The Plugin must be informed when a tree Node under its control is double clicked. (original proposal said this job was the Loader's)
• Each extension will be responsible for tracking its own data and creating its own UI elements in the passed MDI context.
• Each Extension will be given the opportunity to save or load its data when the rest of the game is doing so.
• Extensions will be given a method of identifying themselves as being instantiable in other resources
   
  • Take, for example, a 3D mesh resource. It would inherit from a class that can be assigned to a GM object as one assigns a sprite or mask.
  • An Extension that can be instantiated in room will be allowed to be placed multiple times, visually.
       
    • Such an Extension should provide a method to obtain bounding box information for placement and clipping, as well as a method to render itself in the room.
    • Extensions that can be instantiated in GM objects should provide a method of obtaining an iconic preview, as sprites do.
• Extensions must be able to supply a unique ID and a C-structured or easily restructured dump of relevant data to the output executable. If the ID is not unique, backend plugins (Namely, ENIGMA) will be unable to determine what structure they are looking at, resulting in undefined behavior (like segfault). The data must obviously be easily structured per the C spec (like POD) so that ENIGMA can work with them.
• A method must be provided of accessing any complicated UI Components to the Extensions (Namely, the JEdit class and the GML syntax highlighting context, which should be easily extended or swapped out in a specific JEdit instance). (original proposal said this job was the Loader's)

I have not decided how the C++ backend should be extended, aside from that it must share a list of extension IDs.

What I have decided on is a new resource that will be added, in addition to Panes. R4's introduction called for a resource dubbed "Whitespace" and renamed to "Definitions." Both names suck. I now propose that this be a tabbed, C-code resource, basically offering what simple C IDE's offer (tabs and a code editing pane with simple features).

This proposal is likely incomplete, but I have work tomorrow and should be sleeping. Comments welcome. Comments from Java programmers especially welcome.