I am writing a game in AS3 and have, as an example, around 40 objects on screen. Let's say they are clouds. I'm wondering which of the two paths would be less a strain on system resources:
a) Put an eventListener on each object and have it update itself, or
b) Loop through the array and manually update each object
Or is the performance difference negligable? Does either solution scale better than the others?
I would expect the performance to be fairly negligable either way. Once you get a lot of objects you might see a difference (with the loop being the winner). From my experience Adobe put a lot of work into optimizing the actionscript event listener path.
This is a tricky one, purists would say to to go with the array looping method, as with this method it would be possible to cut out the 'view' out of the MVC and still have the system working (which is a good test of any system). However, if you are working with the events you can cut some corners with event bubbling and strict typing.
For example if we assume you make a custom event called CloudEvent that has a property called cloud that contains a reference to the dispatching CloudSprite, then as long as the event bubbles by default, you don't need to add an event listener to each one, just to the DisplayObjectContainer which holds them (which I am imaginatively calling CloudContainer). This way the event bubbles up and you only have to add one listener, and don't have to worry about managing listeners on child items.
public function CloudContainer()
{
super();
addEventListener(CloudEvent.CHANGE, cloudChangeHandler);
}
private function cloudChangeHandler(evt:CloudEvent):void
{
var cloud:CloudSprite = evt.cloud;
cloud.update();
}
Hope this helps
I am under the impression that event listeners require more resources so it is better to use an array when performance is required. It would also scale better for that reason. If you are using Flash 10 then use a Vector, I believe it offers better performance than an array (and type saftey).
Use EventListeners! Just make sure you manage them properly ie. remove them when you done, use weak references.
You wont really find much performance from doing things like this. Usually better performance comes from the bigger ticked items, like not using filters, lowering the frame-rate etc. So punishing your code clarity and OO for the sake of a half a millisecond is not worth it in my book.
There are a few really great guides out there that will teach you all about optimizing in AS3. The best one I have found is Grant Skinner's; AS3 Resource Management. And I just found a quicker seven step version. I would definitely recommend everyone doing AS3 should read the Grant Skinner slides though.
Of course don't just take my word (or anyone else answering your question), you can do you own tests and actually see whats up using a profiler. See Lee Brimlow's latest video tutorial for how to do this. It is worth the watch! Check it out here: GotoAndLearn - ActionScript 3 Performance Testing.
Related
what is the meaning of this interfaces? even if we implement an interface on a class, we have to declare it's functionality again and again each time we implement it on a different class, so what is the reason of interfaces exist on as3 or any other languages which has interface.
Thank you
I basically agree with the answers posted so far, just had a bit to add.
First to answer the easy part, yes other languages have interfaces. Java comes to mind immediately but I'm pretty sure all OOP languages (C++, C#, etc.) include some mechanism for creating interfaces.
As stated by Jake, you can write interfaces as "contracts" for what will be fulfilled in order to separate work. To take a hypothetical say I'm working on A and you're working on C, and bob is working on B. If we define B' as an interface for B, we can quickly and relatively easily define B' (relative to defining B, the implementation), and all go on our way. I can assume that from A I can code to B', you can assume from C you can code to B', and when bob gets done with B we can just plug it in.
This comes to Jugg1es point. The ability to swap out a whole functional piece is made easier by "dependency injection" (if you don't know this phrase, please google it). This is the exact thing described, you create an interface that defines generally what something will do, say a database connector. For all database connectors, you want it to be able to connect to database, and run queries, so you might define an interface that says the classes must have a "connect()" method and a "doQuery(stringQuery)." Now lets say Bob writes the implementation for MySQL databases, now your client says well we just paid 200,000 for new servers and they'll run Microsoft SQL so to take advantage of that with your software all you'd need to do is swap out the database connector.
In real life, I have a friend who runs a meat packing/distribution company in Chicago. The company that makes their software/hardware setup for scanning packages and weighing things as they come in and out (inventory) is telling them they have to upgrade to a newer OS/Server and newer hardware to keep with the software. The software is not written in a modular way that allows them to maintain backwards compatibility. I've been in this boat before plenty of times, telling someone xyz needs to be upgraded to get abc functionality that will make doing my job 90% easier. Anyhow guess point being in the real world people don't always make use of these things and it can bite you in the ass.
Interfaces are vital to OOP, particularly when developing large applications. One example is if you needed a data layer that returns data on, say, Users. What if you eventually change how the data is obtained, say you started with XML web services data, but then switched to a flat file or something. If you created an interface for your data layer, you could create another class that implements it and make all the changes to the data layer without ever having to change the code in your application layer. I don't know if you're using Flex or Flash, but when using Flex, interfaces are very useful.
Interfaces are a way of defining functionality of a class. it might not make a whole lot of sense when you are working alone (especially starting out), but when you start working in a team it helps people understand how your code works and how to use the classes you wrote (while keeping your code encapsulated). That's the best way to think of them at an intermediate level in my opinion.
While the existing answers are pretty good, I think they miss the chief advantage of using Interfaces in ActionScript, which is that you can avoid compiling the implementation of that Interface into the Main Document Class.
For example, if you have an ISpaceShip Interface, you now have a choice to do several things to populate a variable typed to that Interface. You could load an external swf whose main Document Class implements ISpaceShip. Once the Loader's contentLoaderInfo's COMPLETE event fires, you cast the contentto ISpaceShip, and the implementation of that (whatever it is) is never compiled into your loading swf. This allows you to put real content in front of your users while the load process happens.
By the same token, you could have a timeline instance declared in the parent AS Class of type ISpaceShip with "Export for Actionscript in Frame N *un*checked. This will compile on the frame where it is first used, so you no longer need to account for this in your preloading time. Do this with enough things and suddenly you don't even need a preloader.
Another advantage of coding to Interfaces is if you're doing unit tests on your code, which you should unless your code is completely trivial. This enables you to make sure that the code is succeeding or failing on its own merits, not based on the merits of the collaborator, or where the collaborator isn't appropriate for a test. For example, if you have a controller that is designed to control a specific type of View, you're not going to want to instantiate the full view for the test, but only the functionality that makes a difference for the test.
If you don't have support in your work situation for writing tests, coding to interfaces helps make sure that your code will be testable once you get to the point where you can write tests.
The above answers are all very good, the only thing I'd add - and it might not be immediately clear in a language like AS3, where there are several untyped collection classes (Array, Object and Dictionary) and Object/dynamic classes - is that it's a means of grouping otherwise disparate objects by type.
A quick example:
Image you had a space shooter, where the player has missiles which lock-on to various targets. Suppose, for this purpose, you wanted any type of object which could be locked onto to have internal functions for registering this (aka an interface):
function lockOn():void;//Tells the object something's locked onto it
function getLockData():Object;//Returns information, position, heat, whatever etc
These targets could be anything, a series of totally unrelated classes - enemy, friend, powerup, health.
One solution would be to have them all to inherit from a base class which contained these methods - but Enemies and Health Pickups wouldn't logically share a common ancestor (and if you find yourself making bizarre inheritance chains to accomodate your needs then you should rethink your design!), and your missile will also need a reference to the object its locked onto:
var myTarget:Enemy;//This isn't going to work for the Powerup class!
or
var myTarget:Powerup;//This isn't going to work for the Enemy class!
...but if all lockable classes implement the ILockable interface, you can set this as the type reference:
var myTarget:ILockable;//This can be set as Enemy, Powerup, any class which implements ILockable!
..and have the functions above as the interface itself.
They're also handy when using the Vector class (the name may mislead you, it's just a typed array) - they run much faster than arrays, but only allow a single type of element - and again, an interface can be specified as type:
var lockTargets:Vector.<Enemy> = new Vector.<Enemy>();//New array of lockable objects
lockTargets[0] = new HealthPickup();//Compiler won't like this!
but this...
var lockTargets:Vector.<ILockable> = new Vector.<ILockable>();
lockTargets[0] = new HealthPickup();
lockTargets[1] = new Enemy();
Will, provided Enemy and HealthPickup implement ILockable, work just fine!
I have a question how can I clear/free memory in flash? For example I am finishing game and I want to start from beginning and if I will just jump to the first frame all the objects there are still in this memory, is any possibility to force cleaning memory?
Can I free memory for an object? for example I removeChild(something) - and I want to free memory for an object as I will reuse it?
Can anybody explain me how the engine works?
Thanks
I would encourage you to read Chapter 14, Garbage Collection in the "Moock Book" (Essential ActionScript 3.0 by O'Reilly Publishing).
The short answer to your question is that you're not in control of de-allocation, the garbage collector is. In a garbage-collected language like AS3 or Java, you don't have manual control over allocation and de-allocation of memory like you do in lower level languages; there are no AS3 equivalents to things like delete in C++ or free in C. Your goal should not be controlling when you destroy things, but rather not forgetting to remove references to things you no longer need around and making sure you disable things that you intend for garbage collection.
Memory leaks in AS3 typically come from a mixture of newbie misunderstanding (like thinking removeChild or setting a reference to null destroys objects), and from not keeping good track of references to objects--especially where strong listeners are involved.
A previous respondent posted this:
myObject = null;
What this does is remove a reference to the object that the variable myObject was holding. Nothing more. You need to know a lot more about the situation in order to be able to say whether this assignment even makes the object in question eligible for garbage collection, especially how many other variable are holding references to the object. And the object might already be eligible for garbage collection even if you didn't set the reference to null (i.e. if myObject has no connection to a GC root).
Suffice to say, the entire GC mechanism is more complex than can be satisfactorily explained in a StackOverflow post. That's why it has a whole chapter in the Moock Book, and even that book does not go into implemenation detail or great detail about when exactly the Flash Player does its ref counting deletions or mark and sweep passes.
The most important things to remember are, IMHO:
When you intend to "kill" an object, give it a cleanUp() or destroy() function where you do things like stop all its timers, sounds, remove listeners, etc. An object will continue to exist and execute code until it gets GC'd. And the Flash Player defers GC as long as it can--it's usually triggered when the Player needs to allocate more RAM from your system, because allocating memory is about the only thing that's more time consuming than doing the mark and sweep GC pass.
Read about weak vs strong listeners. Basically, when you have a weak listener, the listener reference is one that is ignored by mark-and-sweep GC, so it alone will not prevent an object from getting collected. But don't listen to anyone who tells you "always use weak" or "always use strong listeners and manually remove them" because there are times where each is appropriate, and that's why the choice is yours.
removeChild() will remove object from stage, but will still keep it in memory. You will have to null the object like this myObject = null if you wish to get rid of it entirely. You might not need to do that thought. Just removing it from stage and removing all associated events will be sufficient in most cases.
Clearing memory is a tricky thing with Flash, the proper way ow implementing it setting up objects properly in the first play for easy clearing, rather than forcing deletion. When you want to remove an object from memory, you do it by removing any reference to it, and then flash marks it for garbage collection. Then Flash at a later point removes the object from memory.
In order for the object to be ready for data collection it cannot have any connection to another object.
so if you have an object that has a single connection to a MovieClip and the movie clip has no other relation, then if you set it to null, you will remove it.
if you, however, have two objects that point to it, if you remove one link by setting it to null, the MovieClip will not be removed.
furhtermore, if you have a 2 or more movie clips that have a network of connections, removing those objects requires these connections be broken as-well. For example if you have a level with many characters and listeners set up, removing the lavel movieClip will not clear it.
one way of breaking these connections is adding onRemovedFromStage Events, that remove further children, listeners and objects. I've started using the casaLib extension of movieclip - CasaMovieClip, that has a function called removeChildrenAndDestroy. this makes it a bit easier, but would take a while to implement on an older project.
Anyhow, you'll find there are many sites discussing this, a good place to start is grant skinner's blog
recently, i ran into a problem where i needed to access the List object from the List's custom cell renderer class.
there were 2 options:
listen for and dispatch a custom event to communicate between the 2 classes.
reference the List from the cell renderer class with the parent property: List(parent.parent.parent)
while it's much easier to choose the second option, i feel that dispatching and listening for a custom event would result in code that's more inline with the design of AVM2, offers greater control for communication and, as it's expected AS3, should be less difficult to debug or maintain within new hands.
however, i also feel that using an event is more expensive, requires attention to resource management perhaps making it more difficult to debug and maintain and could be generally overkill.
is this simply a matter of needs or taste? should dispatching/listening for custom events be avoided if they can be?
Don't forget that you can't see the control flow of event listeners from single glances at the code.
While I'm not against event listeners completely, if you use them, you should try to use them in the most self-documenting and simple way possible. If you have clever stuff, like adding/removing event listeners, and it goes wrong, then it can be a nightmare to debug because you cannot see what dispatchEvent is going to do.
If owner gets you the right object, then I would just go with that, myself.
I would look at it from another angle. If the other option ends up creating more dependency between the two classes, I would definitely opt for event dispatching.
In that regard , I'm not sure why you think that an event driven application would be harder to debug & maintain. It would seem to be the opposite, but it would of course depends on how one implements the event dispatching in the application. But saying this and re-reading your question I realize you seem to contradict yourself! Of course , I tend to agree with the first statement.
...offers greater control for communication and, as it's expected AS3,
should be less difficult to debug or maintain...
...perhaps making it more difficult to debug and maintain and
could be generally overkill.
My professor gave my class an assignment today based on object oriented programming in Pygame. Basically he has said that the game that we are to create will be void of a main game loop. While I believe that it is possible to do this (and this question has stated that it is possible) I don't believe that this is required for adherence to the Object Oriented paradigm.
In a diagram that the professor gave, he showed the game initializing and as the objects were instantiated the control flow of the program would be distributed among the objects.
Basically I believe it would be possible to implement a game this way, but it would not be an ideal way nor is it required for Object Oriented adherence. Any thoughts?
EDIT: We are creating an asteroids clone, which I believe further complicates things due to the fact that it is a real time action game.
Turn based games or anything event driven would be the route to go. In other words, take desktop GUI apps. They'll just tick (wait) over until an event is fired. The same could be done for a simple game. Take Checkers for example. Looping each game cycle would be overkill. 90% of the time the game will be static. Using some form of events (the observer design pattern would be nice here) would provide a much better solution. You're using Pygame, so there may be support for this built in, through due to my limited use I cannot comment fully. Either way, the general principles are the same.
All in all it's a pretty rubbish assignment if you ask me. If it's to teach you event driven programming, a simple GUI application would be better. Even the simplest of games us a basic game loop, which can adhere to OO principles.
Hmm. In the general case, I think this idea is probably hokum. SDL (upon which PyGame is implemented), provides information to the program via an event queue, and consuming that queue requires some sort of repeatedly checking the queue for events, processing them, and waiting until the next event arrives.
There are some particular exceptions to this, though. You can poll the mouse and keyboard for their state without accessing the event queue. The problem with that is it still requires something like a loop, so that it happens over and over again until the game exits.
You could use pygame.time to wait on a timer instead of waiting on the event queue, and then pass control to the game objects which poll the mouse and keyboard as per above, but you are still 'looping', but bound by a timer instead of the event queue.
Instead of focusing on eliminating a main loop, how about instead think about using it in an object oriented way.
For instance, you could require a 'root' object, which actually has its own event loop, but instead of performing any action based on the incoming events, it calls a handler on several child objects. For instance when the root object recieves a pygame.event.MOUSEBUTTONDOWN event, it could search through it's children for a 'rect' attribute and determine if the event.pos attribute is inside that rect. if it is it can call a hypothetical onClick method on that child object.
I think it might qualify as event driven programming? Which can still be object oriented. You see this in Flash a lot.
There's a difference between a main loop in a main class. You can still have a game class initialize all of your objects, and then rely on inputs to move the game onward.
Kinda hard to say exactly without knowing the exact parameters of your assignment, the devil is in the details.
You might look at how python utilizes signals. A decent example I found is at: http://docs.python.org/library/signal.html
i'm curious about something. Let say we have 30 object in the code, and every object should be animated trough enter frame event. Which will be faster(in terms of memory execution) : to have just one event listener in the main object (for example) and to call object methods, or, to have separate event listener for every object?
Thanks :) .
UPDATE: Well, actually, i need to monitor each object to find out when that object is on current frame, e.g. on end of animation, and than remove it from display list. What is the best way to that?
For 30 objects, this doesn't really matter. Actually, in general it matters only little, since the bottleneck will always be rendering.
But to answer your question: Listeners are slow. For one notification to happen, an Event object needs to be created (allocation is generally quite expensive), and an untyped call of an anonymous function or a method closure needs to be done (which is signifficantly slower than calling a method on a strictly typed value).
You should try to use tweens instead of animating via ENTER FRAME event.
Animating on ENTER FRAME will cause tremendous lag, especially if you have lots of objects.
Checkout TweenLite: http://www.greensock.com/tweenlite/
Definitely to have just one event listener. The less listeners, the faster.
As a rule of thumb, one listener is better, and will induce a more predictible behaviour.
That being said, it depends pretty heavily on what you're trying to do. You might not have to animate every object on every enter frame event, thus gaining performance further.