On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 1:16 AM, Roger Hicks<pidge...@gmail.com> wrote: > Note that since developing it I've tried to make my program adaptable > to this process. It hasn't been easy to come up with a workable > solution, and it is still not complete, but my system now correctly > models about 99% of the information it tracks. For those exceptions, > I've designed it so I can go back and flag a past transaction as > DISPUTED or FAILED. Upon doing so the gamestate is rolled back to that > point, the corrected results of the action are processed and then the > later actions are re-processed to generate the new correct gamestate. > > BobTHJ
Ah, not bad at all! I was trying to do the same thing. How are you dealing with intervening rules changes? -- -c.
