Cuberite Forum
Random Chitchat 2012-2016 - Printable Version

+- Cuberite Forum (https://forum.cuberite.org)
+-- Forum: Off Topic (https://forum.cuberite.org/forum-9.html)
+--- Forum: Off Topic Discussion (https://forum.cuberite.org/forum-10.html)
+--- Thread: Random Chitchat 2012-2016 (/thread-434.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487

RE: What we're doing - NiLSPACE - 11-11-2013

Since I'm not storing the Playername instead of the object I'm now using a callback to get the position of the wolfs owner.

RE: What we're doing - FakeTruth - 11-11-2013

I'm not exactly sure on how to solve this problem. Getting the player position by name sounds horribly inefficient, but storing a pointer can lead to dangling pointers...
One solution I know is using smart pointers, but usage of smart pointers seem to indicate bad software architecture.
Storing an entity ID, and using that to look up a player position should already be a lot faster, you could also use a (hash)map and it should be fast enough.
But that's all referencing the player indirectly.
Another solution could be to hook into some kind of callback that notifies you when an object is removed, so you can check whether it's the player you're pointing to and clear the reference.

I don't know the perfect solution to this, maybe xoft knows something that is more suitable.

RE: What we're doing - NiLSPACE - 11-11-2013

FakeTruth Wrote:Storing an entity ID, and using that to look up a player position should already be a lot faster
If we do that then when you log out the wolf isn't your wolf anymore.
I've done a bit more with the wolves (still using callbacks though). I think it's pretty much done now.

RE: What we're doing - FakeTruth - 11-11-2013

I mean during runtime use the entity ID to look up the player, but when serializing you store the player name Wink

RE: What we're doing - xoft - 11-11-2013

I'm not so sure using an EntityID would be faster:
- EntityID is matched against all entities in the world, requiring a walk of all the currently loaded chunks and comparison to all entities (including mobs, pickups etc.)
- PlayerName is checked against the playerlist only, without even traversing the chunkmap. As long as there arent' that many players connected, it might be quite a bit faster
Other thoughts later.
If the current code proves too inefficient, the first step against making it faster is to make the wolf "recalculate" its destination only once per N ticks, with N = 4 or more.

The best solution probably is to mix a bit of everything in. Store a cPlayer pointer for runtime; write a hook so that when the cPlayer object gets deleted, the wolf gets notified of this event. And also store the playername, so that it may be serialized to NBT and used to check the player when a new cPlayer object is created, and assign the cPlayer object back to the cWolf when appropriate.

It goes against the "single primary key" principle, but it's an optimization in the name of speed and I think it's easy to understand and should be relatively easy to code. Except for the callbacks, that is.

RE: What we're doing - NiLSPACE - 11-11-2013

I was indeed thinking about storing both the playername and the object, but when the player leaves, is the player object empty or is it kinda there still? If it is still there wasn't there an "IsDestroyed" function where you could see if the object still exists?
I now have this:
if (IsTame())
	{
		if (m_OwnerName == "" && m_OwnerObject == NULL || m_OwnerObject->IsDestroyed())
		{
			class cCallback :
				public cPlayerListCallback
			{
				virtual bool Item(cPlayer * Player) override
				{
					OwnerObject = Player;
					return false;
				}
			public:
				cPlayer * OwnerObject;
			} Callback;
			m_World->DoWithPlayer(m_OwnerName, Callback);
			if (Callback.OwnerObject != NULL)
			{
				m_OwnerObject = Callback.OwnerObject;
				m_OwnerName = m_OwnerObject->GetName();
			}
		}
		else
		{
			Vector3f OwnerCoords = m_OwnerObject->GetPosition();
			double Distance = (OwnerCoords - GetPosition()).Length();
			if (Distance < 3)
			{
				m_bMovingToDestination = false;
			}
			else if ((Distance > 30) && (!IsSitting()))
			{
				TeleportToCoords(OwnerCoords.x, OwnerCoords.y, OwnerCoords.z);
			}
			else
			{
				m_Destination = OwnerCoords;
			}
		}
	}
But the server crashes when there is a tamed wolf.

RE: What we're doing - xoft - 11-12-2013

The condition in the third line is unclear and probably buggy. Use parenthesis to indicate the proper order of evaluation, the OR versus the AND.

The IsDestroyed() function has a slightly different meaning. It returns false throughout the object's lifetime, until the Destroy() function is called. The Destroy() function doesn't destroy the object, it only sets a flag that the object should be destroyed (because other objects may be still referencing this player). Since then, the IsDestroyed() function returns true, although the object is still perfectly valid. Then in a well-defined point in time the object is actually deleted, and all calls to it will lead to undefined behavior (crash, if you're lucky).

RE: What we're doing - NiLSPACE - 11-12-2013

So 
if ((m_OwnerName == "" && m_OwnerObject == NULL) || m_OwnerObject->IsDestroyed())
should work?
I started debugging since It didn't work and it seems to crash when I use the IsDestroyed() function.
It even crashes when I use any function.
This is in the debug console thing
Code:
The thread 'Win32 Thread' (0xf48) has exited with code 0 (0x0).
The thread 'Win32 Thread' (0xe94) has exited with code 0 (0x0).
The thread 'Win32 Thread' (0x12f0) has exited with code 0 (0x0).
The thread 'Win32 Thread' (0x13c0) has exited with code 0 (0x0).
First-chance exception at 0x01031642 in MCServer.exe: 0xC0000005: Access violation reading location 0x000000b8.
Unhandled exception at 0x01031642 in MCServer.exe: 0xC0000005: Access violation reading location 0x000000b8.


RE: What we're doing - FakeTruth - 11-12-2013

Maybe m_OwnerObject is not initialized?

Anyway, perhaps we could add a tick delay before actually deallocating entities. If we add this delay any object referencing another entity can use the tick function to check whether the referenced entity is destroyed and remove the reference. You won't have to deal with callbacks and stuff, but you'll need to check the validity of your references each tick...

RE: What we're doing - SamJBarney - 11-12-2013

How about having the Player handle the ownership? You could have the player update a flag that notifies the wolf that it needs to change to a different state, and then when the player exits, you don't have to worry about a dangling pointer.
This also means that you wouldn't have to add a tick delay or any extra code like that.