Thread history
Viewing a history listing
| Time | User | Activity | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10:45, 19 August 2018 | Xor (talk | contribs) | New thread created | |
| 15:32, 19 August 2018 | Enamel 32 (talk | contribs) | New reply created | (Reply to Keeping AdvancedRobot instance in static field) |
| 02:43, 20 August 2018 | Xor (talk | contribs) | New reply created | (Reply to Keeping AdvancedRobot instance in static field) |
| 19:38, 20 August 2018 | Skilgannon (talk | contribs) | New reply created | (Reply to Keeping AdvancedRobot instance in static field) |
| 21:41, 20 August 2018 | Enamel 32 (talk | contribs) | New reply created | (Reply to Keeping AdvancedRobot instance in static field) |
| 03:31, 21 August 2018 | Xor (talk | contribs) | New reply created | (Reply to Keeping AdvancedRobot instance in static field) |
| 03:33, 21 August 2018 | Xor (talk | contribs) | Comment text edited | |
| 03:36, 21 August 2018 | Xor (talk | contribs) | Comment text edited |
When keeping AdvancedRobot instance in static field, robot will show warning:
Static references to robots can cause unwanted behaviour with the robot using these.
However I've been using this pattern (the way robocode can't detect, and I cannot avoid as well) since the first day I write robocode. However, robocode did not mention what's wrong with this pattern. Do anyone know what's the exact meaning of this warning?
I think the risk is that the static robot reference is not guaranteed to be valid after a given round, so if you don’t update the reference things may not work as expected.
Yes, that's also what I guess, and since I'm updating the reference every round, I guess it would not be a problem. However, since robocode did not say what unwanted behavior it is, I'm worrying about more problems: race condition (since each round you have a new thread), GC problem (no longer a problem since robocode cleans static field each battle) and more
Since you're updating it every round, why do you need it to be static?
because I’m simply making everything under a static variable, just like lazy singleton. The field itself is not static at all, but the field containing the field is static and has to be static. Diamond uses this style as well afak However the problem of static reference should happen to this style as well, since two approaches are fundamentally equivalent
