Glad to see another Robocoder interested in modular architecture. I was looking over the Module pages and I really like your approach. PluggableRobot and Module have somewhat different philosophies, but I think there's room for both.
The biggest downside with PluggableRobot is that you're still left with something of a blank canvas. You have modularity, but there isn't really anything that guides you in terms of what components to make or how to share data between modules. Module handles that, which is a big win. On the other hand, Module seems to force your modules to be of particular types, whereas with PluggableRobot you can make modules that may not correspond to the types you've laid out. For example, RabidWombat (which I promise will *eventually* be seen in the wild :-)) has a "taunt" module that listens for events and then writes obnoxious comments in the console. Not terribly mission-critical, I'll grant you, but you get the picture.
Anyway, looks like some nice work. Keep it up!
RobertWalker 17:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. Yes, they are different approaches in the way you have said. Looking at the code of PluggableRobot it's easy to get the idea behind its structure, but to see the structure in action you can upload to the robocodeRepository a simple and didactic bot extending pluggableRobot: A bot with less complexity than RabidWombat please :P Let me know about that.
--jab 15:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)