Skip to content

Turn MaskedStorage into a safe wrapper around UnprotectedStorage #664

Open

Description

@Rua

At the moment, MaskedStorage requires a Component bound on its type parameter, and it's missing two of the methods that UnprotectedStorage offers. I think it would make the type more flexible, with relatively little work, if the following changes were made:

  • Remove the T: Component bound, instead adding a second type parameter S for the storage, with a S: UnprotectedStorage<T> bound.
  • Add the missing methods .get and .get_mut that forward to the corresponding UnprotectedStorage methods.

With these changes, the MaskedStorage type could be used for any T, anything that needs an ID for lookup would work, not just components. It would make it simply a safe wrapper around UnprotectedStorage. An example is Amethyst, which currently uses UnprotectedStorage for asset storage, but which has had to build its own safety wrappers. If MaskedStorage were changed in this way, users could use that type instead, without safety concerns.

Activity

  1. azriel91 commented on Jan 18, 2020

    @azriel91
    Member

    Heya, I've had a skim through the code. I think the enabled flexibility is good. Would like to check out how much effort it is for consumers to migrate (it may be small -- I haven't read properly), and if it's small enough, would bundle it together with the other small improvements in the next release. Otherwise may decide to do a release, then put this one in the next release (that is, split the migration steps for consumers).

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

      Milestone

      No milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions