For a 2D game I'm making (for Android) I'm using a component-based system where a GameObject holds several GameComponent objects. GameComponents can be things such as input components, rendering components, bullet emitting components, and so on. Currently, GameComponents have a reference to the object that owns them and can modify it, but the GameObject itself just has a list of components and it doesn't care what the components are as long as they can be updated when the object is updated.
Sometimes a component has some information which the GameObject needs to know. For example, for collision detection a GameObject registers itself with the collision detection subsystem to be notified when it collides with another object. The collision detection subsystem needs to know the object's bounding box. I store x and y in the object directly (because it is used by several components), but width and height are only known to the rendering component which holds the object's bitmap. I would like to have a method getBoundingBox or getWidth in the GameObject that gets that information. Or in general, I want to send some information from a component to the object. However, in my current design the GameObject doesn't know what specific components it has in the list.
I can think of several ways to solve this problem:
Instead of having a completely generic list of components, I can let the GameObject have specific field for some of the important components. For example, it can have a member variable called renderingComponent; whenever I need to get the width of the object I just use renderingComponent.getWidth(). This solution still allows for generic list of components but it treats some of them differently, and I'm afraid I'll end up having several exceptional fields as more components need to be queried. Some objects don't even have rendering components.
Have the required information as members of the GameObject but allow the components to update it. So an object has a width and a height which are 0 or -1 by default, but a rendering component can set them to the correct values in its update loop. This feels like a hack and I might end up pushing many things to the GameObject class for convenience even if not all objects need them.
Have components implement an interface that indicates what type of information they can be queried for. For example, a rendering component would implement the HasSize interface which includes methods such as getWidth and getHeight. When the GameObject needs the width, it loops over its components checking if they implement the HasSize interface (using the instanceof keyword in Java, or is in C#). This seems like a more generic solution, one disadvantage is that searching for the component might take some time (but then, most objects have 3 or 4 components only).
This question isn't about a specific problem. It comes up often in my design and I was wondering what's the best way to handle it. Performance is somewhat important since this is a game, but the number of components per object is generally small (the maximum is 8).
The short version
In a component based system for a game, what is the best way to pass information from the components to the object while keeping the design generic?
We get variations on this question three or four times a week on GameDev.net (where the gameobject is typically called an 'entity') and so far there's no consensus on the best approach. Several different approaches have been shown to be workable however so I wouldn't worry about it too much.
However, usually the problems regard communicating between components. Rarely do people worry about getting information from a component to the entity - if an entity knows what information it needs, then presumably it knows exactly what type of component it needs to access and which property or method it needs to call on that component to get the data. if you need to be reactive rather than active, then register callbacks or have an observer pattern set up with the components to let the entity know when something in the component has changed, and read the value at that point.
Completely generic components are largely useless: they need to provide some sort of known interface otherwise there's little point them existing. Otherwise you may as well just have a large associative array of untyped values and be done with it. In Java, Python, C#, and other slightly-higher-level languages than C++ you can use reflection to give you a more generic way of using specific subclasses without having to encode type and interface information into the components themselves.
As for communication:
Some people are making assumptions that an entity will always contain a known set of component types (where each instance is one of several possible subclasses) and therefore can just grab a direct reference to the other component and read/write via its public interface.
Some people are using publish/subscribe, signals/slots, etc., to create arbitrary connections between components. This seems a bit more flexible but ultimately you still need something with knowledge of these implicit dependencies. (And if this is known at compile time, why not just use the previous approach?)
Or, you can put all shared data in the entity itself and use that as a shared communication area (tenuously related to the blackboard system in AI) that each of the components can read and write to. This usually requires some robustness in the face of certain properties not existing when you expected them to. It also doesn't lend itself to parallelism, although I doubt that's a massive concern on a small embedded system...?
Finally, some people have systems where the entity doesn't exist at all. The components live within their subsystems and the only notion of an entity is an ID value in certain components - if a Rendering component (within the Rendering system) and a Player component (within the Players system) have the same ID, then you can assume the former handles the drawing of the latter. But there isn't any single object that aggregates either of those components.
Like others have said, there's no always right answer here. Different games will lend themselves towards different solutions. If you're building a big complex game with lots of different kinds of entities, a more decoupled generic architecture with some kind of abstract messaging between components may be worth the effort for the maintainability you get. For a simpler game with similar entities, it may make the most sense to just push all of that state up into GameObject.
For your specific scenario where you need to store the bounding box somewhere and only the collision component cares about it, I would:
Store it in the collision component itself.
Make the collision detection code work with the components directly.
So, instead of having the collision engine iterate through a collection of GameObjects to resolve the interaction, have it iterate directly through a collection of CollisionComponents. Once a collision has occurred, it will be up to the component to push that up to its parent GameObject.
This gives you a couple of benefits:
Leaves collision-specific state out of GameObject.
Spares you from iterating over GameObjects that don't have collision components. (If you have a lot of non-interactive objects like visual effects and decoration, this can save a decent number of cycles.)
Spares you from burning cycles walking between the object and its component. If you iterate through the objects then do getCollisionComponent() on each one, that pointer-following can cause a cache miss. Doing that for every frame for every object can burn a lot of CPU.
If you're interested I have more on this pattern here, although it looks like you already understand most of what's in that chapter.
Use an "event bus". (note that you probably can't use the code as is but it should give you the basic idea).
Basically, create a central resource where every object can register itself as a listener and say "If X happens, I want to know". When something happens in the game, the responsible object can simply send an event X to the event bus and all interesting parties will notice.
[EDIT] For a more detailed discussion, see message passing (thanks to snk_kid for pointing this out).
One approach is to initialize a container of components. Each component can provide a service and may also require services from other components. Depending on your programming language and environment you have to come up with a method for providing this information.
In its simplest form you have one-to-one connections between components, but you will also need one-to-many connections. E.g. the CollectionDetector will have a list of components implementing IBoundingBox.
During initialization the container will wire up connections between components, and during run-time there will be no additional cost.
This is close to you solution 3), expect the connections between components are wired only once and are not checked at every iteration of the game loop.
The Managed Extensibility Framework for .NET is a nice solution to this problem. I realize that you intend to develop on Android, but you may still get some inspiration from this framework.
Related
I would like to use a Finite State Machine to handle Entity states in my game. Specifically, for the purpose of this post, I'm going to refer to the Player entity.
My Player is going to have states such as idling, running, jumping, falling, etc... and needs some way to manage these states and the transitions between them. In an OOP environment, the simplest solution was to make each state its own class, and have a method called handleInput take in input and determine if a state change should occur. For example, in the IdleState if either move_right or move_left occurred, the state would change to a new RunningState. This is easy and makes sense because the behavior of a state should be encapsulated in the state.
However, everything changes when you use a FSM in an entity component system. States are no longer objects (because that would go against the flexibility of a component system), but are instead different arrangements of components. The JumpState might have components like JumpComponent, AirbornMovementComponent, etc... whereas the AttackState might have components to represent an attack like SwingComponent, DamageComponent, SwordComponent, etc... The idea is by rearranging the components, new states can be created. The systems job is to simply handle these components separately, because the systems don't care about the state, they only care about the individual components. The actual FSM sits in a FSMComponent held by the entity.
This makes a lot of sense, except for when it comes to handling state transitions. Right now I have an InputSystem that looks for Entities that have an InputComponent and a FSMComponent and attempts to update the state of the FSM based on the current input. However, this doesn't work so well.
The best way (in my opinion) for the FSM to handle input is to have each state determine how it wants to handle input and how to transition to a new state based on that input. This goes back to the OOP way of implementing a FSM, going against the design of an ECS where components are simply data bags and systems do all the logic. In an ECS, the idea would be to have a system handle state transitions, but that gets complicated because every FSM might have different conditions to transition between states.
You can't simply state in the InputSystem "if the input is to move right, then set the state to running". That would be specific to the player, but may not hold true for ALL entities. If one day I decide to make an enemy controllable, the inputs that work for a Player wouldn't be the same inputs for an Enemy.
My question: How can I let my FSM be generic enough and flexible enough in an ECS to allow for various implementations of state transitions without having to do explicit if/else checks in the systems themselves?
Am I approaching this completely the wrong way? If so, what's a better solution for implementing a FSM in an entity component system?
Just riffing off of #fallaciousreasoning's post (and its subsequent comments).
Ash actually has two FSMs that operate at different levels.
First, there is the FSM operating at the Entity level that manages (entity) state transitions by changing the composition of components on an entity as you transition from one state to another.
And secondly there is the FSM operating at the Engine level that manages (engine) state transitions by changing the composition of Systems executed by the engine.
Combined they make for a pretty robust FSM.
The trick is to determine what type of transition you need to work with; one where 'data' composition drives transitions, or one where 'logic' composition drives transitions.
So armed with this new found knowledge lets reason about how this would work.
In more naive approaches to changing component composition, we'd use a number of 'tag' components, along with some lengthy switch statements (or if/else checks) to handle these changes in entity state, ultimately resulting in bloated Systems that do way more than they should. Ash's Entity FSM refines this and avoids those lengthy switch statements (or if/else clauses) by mapping a given component configuration to an identifier and providing a manager that can be used to trigger state transitions. This manager instance can be passed around as a property within a component OR it can be composed/injected as a member of a system.
Alternatively, taking the Engine FSM approach, we break out each bit of state specific logic into their own Systems, and swap them in and out based on the given (engine) state. This method is not without its drawbacks since the absence of a system will affect all entities associated with it. However, its not uncommon to have Systems dedicated to a single entity instance (for example, a player character) so this can prove useful in the right context. Come to think of it affecting entities globally via System swaps may be desirable in some cases as well.
( Note: If the scope of your logic modification needs to be more narrow, you can restrict it to the System without involving the Engine FMS. This can be achieved by implementing the State pattern within a System where the system can change its behavior by delegating to different sub-systems based on state.)
I've seen some ECS frameworks label System compositions as 'Phases', but they fundamentally act as FSMs where the ECS engine processes entities using different sets of systems associated with a given phase.
In closing, data composition is just one half of the equation; how you compose your bits (or blocks) of logic is just as important when trying to implement a FSM within an ECS.
The ash framework has quite an interesting approach, the author writes about it here
He takes a similar approach to the one you were suggesting, arguing that an entity's state is dependent on the components that make it up (which in turn, determine what systems process the entity).
To make managing the state transitions easier, he introduces a FiniteStateMachine class, which tracks what components are required for an entity to be in various states.
For example, an enemy AI might be in a patrol state if it has a Transform and Patrol component, so he would register that information with the FiniteStateMachine
var fsm = new FiniteStateMachine(enemyEntity);
fsm.CreateState("patrol")
.WithComponent(new Transform())
.WithComponent(new Patrol());
When the Finite State machine is told to change the state of the entity, it removes and adds components to get to the desired state. Any system that needs to change the state of the entity just needs a reference to the finite state machine (something like fsm.ChangeState("patrol")).
He's also released the source code for it, which you can find here (it also explains it better than I ever could) and there's a practical example in the basic asteroids game here. The code is in ActionScript (I think) but you should be able to decipher it without too much difficulty.
I've been working on a small project using C++ (although this question might be considered language-agnostic) and I'm trying to write my program so that it is as efficient and encapsulated as possible. I'm a self-taught and inexperienced programmer but I'm trying to teach myself good habits when it comes to using interfaces and OOP practices. I'm mainly interested in the typical 'best' practices when it comes to accessing the methods of an object that is acting as a subsystem for another class.
First, let me explain what I mean:
An instance of ClassGame wants to render out a 2d sprite image using the private ClassRenderer subsystem of ClassEngine. ClassGame only has access to the interface of ClassEngine, and ClassRenderer is supposed to be a subsystem of ClassEngine (behind a layer of abstraction).
My question is based on the way that the ClassGame object can indirectly make use of ClassRenderer's functionality while still remaining fast and behind a layer of abstraction. From what I've seen in lessons and other people's code examples, there seems to be two basic ways of doing this:
The first method that I learned via a series of online lectures on OOP design was to have one class delegate tasks to it's private member objects internally. [ In this example, ClassGame would call a method that belongs to ClassEngine, and ClassEngine would 'secretly' pass that request on to it's ClassRenderer subsystem by calling one of its methods. ] Kind of a 'daisy chain' of function calls. This makes sense to me, but it seems like it may be slower than some alternative options.
Another way that I've seen in other people's code is have an accessor method that returns a reference or pointer to the location of a particular subsystem. [ So, ClassGame would call a simple method in ClassEngine that would return a reference/pointer to the object that makes up its ClassRenderer subsystem ]. This route seems convenient to me, but it also seems to eliminate the point of having a private member act as a sub-component of a bigger class. Of course, this also means writing much fewer 'mindless' functions that simply pass a particular task on, due to the fact that you can simply write one getter function for each independent subsystem.
Considering the various important aspects of OO design (abstraction, encapsulation, modularity, usability, extensibility, etc.) while also considering speed and performance, is it better to use the first or the second type of method for delegating tasks to a sub-component?
The book Design Patterns Explained discusses a very similar problem in its chapter about the Bridge Pattern. Apparently this chapter is freely available online.
I would recommend you to read it :)
I think your type-1 approach resembles the OOP bridge pattern the most.
Type-2, returning handles to internal data is something that should generally be avoided.
There are many ways to do what you want, and it really depends on the context (for example, how big the project is, how much you expect to reuse from it in other projects etc.)
You have three classes: Game, Engine and Renderer. Both of your solutions make the Game commit to the Engine's interface. The second solution also makes the Game commit to the Renderer's interface. Clearly, the more interfaces you use, the more you have to change if the interfaces change.
How about a third option: The Game knows what it needs in terms of rendering, so you can create an abstract class that describes those requirements. That would be the only interface that the Game commits to. Let's call this interface AbstractGameRenderer.
To tie this into the rest of the system, again there are many ways. One option would be:
1. Implement this abstract interface using your existing Renderer class. So we have a class GameRenderer that uses Renderer and implements the AbstractGameRenderer interface.
2. The Engine creates both the Game object and the GameRenderer object.
3. The Engine passes the GameRenderer object to the Game object (using a pointer to AbstractGameRenderer).
The result: The Game can use a renderer that does what it wants. It doesn't know where it comes from, how it renders, who owns it - nothing. The GameRenderer is a specific implementation, but other implementations (using other renderers) could be written later. The Engine "knows everything" (but that may be acceptable).
Later, you want to take your Game's logic and use it as a mini-game in another game. All you need to do is create the appropriate GameRenderer (implementing AbstractGameRenderer) and pass it to the Game object. The Game object does not care that it's a different game, a different Engine and a different Renderer - it doesn't even know.
The point is that there are many solutions to design problems. This suggestion may not be appropriate or acceptable, or maybe it's exactly what you need. The principles I try to follow are:
1. Try not to commit to interfaces you can't control (you'll have to change if they change)
2. Try to prevent now the pain that will come later
In my example, the assumption is that it's less painful to change GameRenderer if Renderer changes, than it is to change a large component such as Game. But it's better to stick to principles (and minimise pain) rather than follow patterns blindly.
I'll be as direct as I can concerning this problem, because there must be something I'm totally missing coming from a structured programming background.
Say I have a Player class. This Player class does things like changing its position in a game world. I call this method warp() which takes a Position class instance as a parameter to modify the internal position of the Player. This makes total sense to me in OO terms because I'm asking the player "to do" something.
The issue comes when I need to do other things in addition to just modifying the players position. For example, say I need to send that warp event to other players in an online game. Should that code also be within Player's warp() method? If not, then I would imagine declaring some kind of secondary method within say the Server class like warpPlayer(player, position). Doing this seems to reduce everything a player does to itself as a series of getters and setters, or am I just wrong here? Is this something that's totally normal? I've read countless times that a class that exposes everything as a series of getters/setters indicates a pretty poor abstraction (being used as a data structure instead of a class).
The same problem comes when you need to persist data, saving it to a file. Since "saving" a player to a file is at a different level of abstraction than the Player class, does it make sense to have a save() method within the player class? If not, declaring it externally like savePlayer(player) means that the savePlayer method would need a way to get every piece of data it needs out of the Player class, which ends up exposing the entire private implementation of the class.
Because OOP is the design methodology most used today (I assume?), there's got to be something I'm missing concerning these issues. I've discussed it with my peers who also do light development, and they too have also had these exact same issues with OOP. Maybe it's just that structured programming background that keeps us from understanding the full benefits of OOP as something more than providing methods to set and get private data so that it's changed and retrieved from one place.
Thanks in advance, and hopefully I don't sound too much like an idiot. For those who really need to know the languages involved with this design, it's Java on the server side and ActionScript 3 on the client side.
I advise you not to fear the fact, that player will be a class of getters and setters. What is object anyway? It's compilation of attributes and behaviours. In fact the more simple your classes are, the more benefits of an OOP you'll get in the development process.
I would breakdown your tasks/features into classes like that:
Player:
has hitpoints attribute
has position attribute
can walkTo(position), firing "walk" events
can healUp(hitpoints)
can takeDamage(hitpoints), firing "isHurt" event
can be checked for still living, like isAlive() method
Fighter extends Player (you should be able to cast Player to Fighter, when it's needed) :
has strength and other fighting params to calculate damage
can attack() firing "attack" event
World keeps track of all players:
listens to "walk" events (and prevents illegal movements)
listents to "isHurt" events (and checks if they are still alive)
Battle handles battles between two fighters:
constructor with two fighters as parameters (you only want to construct battle between players that are really fighting with each other)
listens to "attack" events from both players, calculates damage, and executes takeDamage method of the defending player
PlayerPersister extends AbstractPersister:
saves player's state in database
restores player's state from database
Of course, you game's breakdown will be much more complicated, but i hope this helps you to start thinking of problems in "more OOP" way :)
Don't worry too much about the Player class being a bunch of setters and getters. The Player class is a model class, and model classes tend to be like that. It's important that your model classes are small and clean, because they will be reused all over the program.
I think you should use the warpPlayer(player, position) approach you suggested. It keeps the Player class clean. If you don't want to pass the player into a function, maybe you could have a PlayerController class that contains a Player object and a warp(Position p) method. That way you can add event posting to the controller, and keep it out of the model.
As for saving the player, I'd do it by making Player implement some sort of serialisation interface. The player class is responsible for serializing and unserializing itself, and some other class would be responsible for writing the serialised data to/from a file.
I would probably consider having a Game object that keeps track of the player object. So you can do something like game.WarpPlayerTo(WarpLocations.Forest); If there are multiple players, maybe pass a player object or guid with it. I feel you can still keep it OO, and a game object would solve most of your issues I think.
The problems you are describing don't belong just to game design, but to software architecture in general. The common approach is to have a Dependency Injection (DI) and Inversion of Control (IoC) mechanisms. In short what you are trying to achieve is to be able to access a local Service of sorts from your objects, in order for example to propagate some event (e.g warp), log, etc.
Inversion of control means in short that instead of creating your objects directly, you tell some service to create them for you, that service in turn uses dependency injection to inform the objects about the services that they depend on.
If you are sharing data between different PCs for multiplayer, then a core function of the program is holding and synchronising that piece of state between the PCs. If you keep these values scattered about in many different classes, it will be difficult to synchronise.
In that case, I would advise that you design the data that needs to be synchronised between all the clients, and store that in a single class (e.g. GameState). This object will handle all the synchronisation between different PCs as well as allowing your local code to request changes to the data. It will then "drive" the game objects (Player, EnemyTank, etc) from its own state. [edit: the reason for this is that keeping this state as small as possible and transferring it efficiently between the clients will be a key part of your design. By keeping it all in one place it makes it much easier to do this, and encourages you to only put the absolute essentials in that class so that your comms don't become bloated with unnecessary data]
If you're not doing multiplayer, and you find that changing the player's position needs to update multiple objects (e.g. you want the camera to know that the player has moved so that it can follow him), then a good approach is to make the player responsible for its own position, but raise events/messages that other objects can subscribe/listen to in order to know when the player's position changes. So you move the player, and the camera gets a callback telling it that the player's position has been updated.
Another approach for this would be that the camera simply reads the player's position every frame in order to updaet itself - but this isn't as loosely coupled and flexible as using events.
Sometimes the trick to OOP is understanding what is an object, and what is functionality of an object. I think its often pretty easy for us to conceptually latch onto objects like Player, Monster, Item, etc as the "objects" in the system and then we need to create objects like Environment, Transporter, etc to link those objects together and it can get out-of-control depending on how the concepts work together, and what we need to accomplish.
The really good engineers I have worked with in the past have had a way of seeing systems as collections of objects. Sometimes in one system they would be business objects (like item, invoice, etc) and sometimes they would be objects that encapsulated processing logic (DyeInjectionProcessor, PersistanceManager) which cut across several operations and "objects" in the system. In both cases the metaphors worked for that particular system and made the overall process easier to implement, describe, and maintain.
The real power of OOP is in making things easier to express and manage in large complex systems. These are the OOP principles to target, and not worry as much whether it fits a rigid object hierarchy.
I havent worked in game design, so perhaps this advice will not work as well, in the systems I do work on and develop it has been a very beneficial change to think of OOP in terms of simplification and encapsulation rather than 1 real world object to 1 OOP class.
I'd like to expand on GrayWizardx's last paragraph to say that not all objects need to have the same level of complexity. It may very well fit your design to have objects that are simple collections of get/set properties. On the other hand, it is important to remember that objects can represent tasks or collections of tasks rather than real-world entities.
For example, a player object might not be responsible for moving the player, but instead representing its position and current state. A PlayerMovement object might contain logic for changing a player's position on screen or within the game world.
Before I start simply repeating what's already been said, I'll point towards the SOLID principles of OOP design (Aviad P. already mentioned two of them). They might provide some high-level guidelines for creating a good object model for a game.
I often find myself needing reference to an object that is several objects away, or so it seems. The options I see are passing a reference through a middle-man or just making something available statically. I understand the danger of global scope, but passing a reference through an object that does nothing with it feels ridiculous. I'm okay with a little bit passing around, I suppose. I suspect there's a line to be drawn somewhere.
Does anyone have insight on where to draw this line?
Or a good way to deal with the problem of distributing references amongst dependent objects?
Use the Law of Demeter (with moderation and good taste, not dogmatically). If you're coding a.b.c.d.e, something IS wrong -- you've nailed forevermore the implementation of a to have a b which has a c which... EEP!-) One or at the most two dots is the maximum you should be using. But the alternative is NOT to plump things into globals (and ensure thread-unsafe, buggy, hard-to-maintain code!), it is to have each object "surface" those characteristics it is designed to maintain as part of its interface to clients going forward, instead of just letting poor clients go through such undending chains of nested refs!
This smells of an abstraction that may need some improvement. You seem to be violating the Law of Demeter.
In some cases a global isn't too bad.
Consider, you're probably programming against an operating system's API. That's full of globals, you can probably access a file or the registry, write to the console. Look up a window handle. You can do loads of stuff to access state that is global across the whole computer, or even across the internet... and you don't have to pass a single reference to your class to access it. All this stuff is global if you access the OS's API.
So, when you consider the number of global things that often exist, a global in your own program probably isn't as bad as many people try and make out and scream about.
However, if you want to have very nice OO code that is all unit testable, I suppose you should be writing wrapper classes around any access to globals whether they come from the OS, or are declared yourself to encapsulate them. This means you class that uses this global state can get references to the wrappers, and they could be replaced with fakes.
Hmm, anyway. I'm not quite sure what advice I'm trying to give here, other than say, structuring code is all a balance! And, how to do it for your particular problem depends on your preferences, preferences of people who will use the code, how you're feeling on the day on the academic to pragmatic scale, how big the code base is, how safety critical the system is and how far off the deadline for completion is.
I believe your question is revealing something about your classes. Maybe the responsibilities could be improved ? Maybe moving some code would solve problems ?
Tell, don't ask.
That's how it was explained to me. There is a natural tendency to call classes to obtain some data. Taken too far, asking too much, typically leads to heavy "getter sequences". But there is another way. I must admit it is not easy to find, but improves gradually in a specific code and in the coder's habits.
Class A wants to perform a calculation, and asks B's data. Sometimes, it is appropriate that A tells B to do the job, possibly passing some parameters. This could replace B's "getName()", used by A to check the validity of the name, by an "isValid()" method on B.
"Asking" has been replaced by "telling" (calling a method that executes the computation).
For me, this is the question I ask myself when I find too many getter calls. Gradually, the methods encounter their place in the correct object, and everything gets a bit simpler, I have less getters and less call to them. I have less code, and it provides more semantic, a better alignment with the functional requirement.
Move the data around
There are other cases where I move some data. For example, if a field moves two objects up, the length of the "getter chain" is reduced by two.
I believe nobody can find the correct model at first.
I first think about it (using hand-written diagrams is quick and a big help), then code it, then think again facing the real thing... Then I code the rest, and any smells I feel in the code, I think again...
Split and merge objects
If a method on A needs data from C, with B as a middle man, I can try if A and C would have some in common. Possibly, A or a part of A could become C (possible splitting of A, merging of A and C) ...
However, there are cases where I keep the getters of course.
But it's less likely a long chain will be created.
A long chain will probably get broken by one of the techniques above.
I have three patterns for this:
Pass the necessary reference to the object's constructor -- the reference can then be stored as a data member of the object, and doesn't need to be passed again; this implies that the object's factory has the necessary reference. For example, when I'm creating a DOM, I pass the element name to the DOM node when I construct the DOM node.
Let things remember their parent, and get references to properties via their parent; this implies that the parent or ancestor has the necessary property. For example, when I'm creating a DOM, there are various things which are stored as properties of the top-level DomDocument ancestor, and its child nodes can access those properties via the reference which each one has to its parent.
Put all the different things which are passed around as references into a single class, and then pass around just that one class instance as the only thing that's passed around. For example, there are many properties required to render a DOM (e.g. the GDI graphics handle, the viewport coordinates, callback events, etc.) ... I put all of these things into a single 'Context' instance which is passed as the only parameter to the methods of the DOM nodes to be rendered, and each method can get whichever properties it needs out of that context parameter.
This is a question with many answers - I am interested in knowing what others consider to be "best practice".
Consider the following situation: you have an object-oriented program that contains one or more data structures that are needed by many different classes. How do you make these data structures accessible?
You can explicitly pass references around, for example, in the constructors. This is the "proper" solution, but it means duplicating parameters and instance variables all over the program. This makes changes or additions to the global data difficult.
You can put all of the data structures inside of a single object, and pass around references to this object. This can either be an object created just for this purpose, or it could be the "main" object of your program. This simplifies the problems of (1), but the data structures may or may not have anything to do with one another, and collecting them together in a single object is pretty arbitrary.
You can make the data structures "static". This lets you reference them directly from other classes, without having to pass around references. This entirely avoids the disadvantages of (1), but is clearly not OO. This also means that there can only ever be a single instance of the program.
When there are a lot of data structures, all required by a lot of classes, I tend to use (2). This is a compromise between OO-purity and practicality. What do other folks do? (For what it's worth, I mostly come from the Java world, but this discussion is applicable to any OO language.)
Global data isn't as bad as many OO purists claim!
After all, when implementing OO classes you've usually using an API to your OS. What the heck is this if it isn't a huge pile of global data and services!
If you use some global stuff in your program, you're merely extending this huge environment your class implementation can already see of the OS with a bit of data that is domain specific to your app.
Passing pointers/references everywhere is often taught in OO courses and books, academically it sounds nice. Pragmatically, it is often the thing to do, but it is misguided to follow this rule blindly and absolutely. For a decent sized program, you can end up with a pile of references being passed all over the place and it can result in completely unnecessary drudgery work.
Globally accessible services/data providers (abstracted away behind a nice interface obviously) are pretty much a must in a decent sized app.
I must really really discourage you from using option 3 - making the data static. I've worked on several projects where the early developers made some core data static, only to later realise they did need to run two copies of the program - and incurred a huge amount of work making the data non-static and carefully putting in references into everything.
So in my experience, if you do 3), you will eventually end up doing 1) at twice the cost.
Go for 1, and be fine-grained about what data structures you reference from each object. Don't use "context objects", just pass in precisely the data needed. Yes, it makes the code more complicated, but on the plus side, it makes it clearer - the fact that a FwurzleDigestionListener is holding a reference to both a Fwurzle and a DigestionTract immediately gives the reader an idea about its purpose.
And by definition, if the data format changes, so will the classes that operate on it, so you have to change them anyway.
You might want to think about altering the requirement that lots of objects need to know about the same data structures. One reason there does not seem to be a clean OO way of sharing data is that sharing data is not very object-oriented.
You will need to look at the specifics of your application but the general idea is to have one object responsible for the shared data which provides services to the other objects based on the data encapsulated in it. However these services should not involve giving other objects the data structures - merely giving other objects the pieces of information they need to meet their responsibilites and performing mutations on the data structures internally.
I tend to use 3) and be very careful about the synchronisation and locking across threads. I agree it is less OO, but then you confess to having global data, which is very un-OO in the first place.
Don't get too hung up on whether you are sticking purely to one programming methodology or another, find a solution which fits your problem. I think there are perfectly valid contexts for singletons (Logging for instance).
I use a combination of having one global object and passing interfaces in via constructors.
From the one main global object (usually named after what your program is called or does) you can start up other globals (maybe that have their own threads). This lets you control the setting up of program objects in the main objects constructor and tearing them down again in the right order when the application stops in this main objects destructor. Using static classes directly makes it tricky to initialize/uninitialize any resources these classes use in a controlled manner. This main global object also has properties for getting at the interfaces of different sub-systems of your application that various objects may want to get hold of to do their work.
I also pass references to relevant data-structures into constructors of some objects where I feel it is useful to isolate those objects from the rest of the world within the program when they only need to be concerned with a small part of it.
Whether an object grabs the global object and navigates its properties to get the interfaces it wants or gets passed the interfaces it uses via its constructor is a matter of taste and intuition. Any object you're implementing that you think might be reused in some other project should definately be passed data structures it should use via its constructor. Objects that grab the global object should be more to do with the infrastructure of your application.
Objects that receive interfaces they use via the constructor are probably easier to unit-test because you can feed them a mock interface, and tickle their methods to make sure they return the right arguments or interact with mock interfaces correctly. To test objects that access the main global object, you have to mock up the main global object so that when they request interfaces (I often call these services) from it they get appropriate mock objects and can be tested against them.
I prefer using the singleton pattern as described in the GoF book for these situations. A singleton is not the same as either of the three options described in the question. The constructor is private (or protected) so that it cannot be used just anywhere. You use a get() function (or whatever you prefer to call it) to obtain an instance. However, the architecture of the singleton class guarantees that each call to get() returns the same instance.
We should take care not to confuse Object Oriented Design with Object Oriented Implementation. Al too often, the term OO Design is used to judge an implementation, just as, imho, it is here.
Design
If in your design you see a lot of objects having a reference to exactly the same object, that means a lot of arrows. The designer should feel an itch here. He should verify whether this object is just commonly used, or if it is really a utility (e.g. a COM factory, a registry of some kind, ...).
From the project's requirements, he can see if it really needs to be a singleton (e.g. 'The Internet'), or if the object is shared because it's too general or too expensive or whatsoever.
Implementation
When you are asked to implement an OO Design in an OO language, you face a lot of decisions, like the one you mentioned: how should I implement all the arrows to the oft used object in the design?
That's the point where questions are addressed about 'static member', 'global variable' , 'god class' and 'a-lot-of-function-arguments'.
The Design phase should have clarified if the object needs to be a singleton or not. The implementation phase will decide on how this singleness will be represented in the program.
Option 3) while not purist OO, tends to be the most reasonable solution. But I would not make your class a singleton; and use some other object as a static 'dictionary' to manage those shared resources.
I don't like any of your proposed solutions:
You are passing around a bunch of "context" objects - the things that use them don't specify what fields or pieces of data they are really interested in
See here for a description of the God Object pattern. This is the worst of all worlds
Simply do not ever use Singleton objects for anything. You seem to have identified a few of the potential problems yourself