I understand that game engines have their own level design methods and different implementations of levels but why don’t they allow full control of the level design to the game developer? Without actually stating that, "The game developer should do/ use this to get this." rather than "Use these tools to get this done. Have full control over your product." ideology?
I guess its because not all game developers are interested in dealing with low level aspects of the game development phase but wouldn’t it be more efficient if the user can optimize certain aspects of the game to better suit for their product? For example, a mesh object, resource submissions, or other areas which game engines define a certain method?
Can the feat a Fighter gains from Combat Flexibility satisfy the prerequisites for other feats you gain at level-up?
For example, Quick Shield Block requires Reactive Shield. If your Combat Flexibility feat is Reactive Shield, can you take Quick Shield Block during your level-up, then change your Combat Flexibility feat to something else the next day?
I got a web job that has multiple routines, and for execute a specific routine, the routine’s name is passed as job’s argument. All these routines must be executed, and there’s a dependency between them (a routine’s input might be other routine’s output); so for orchestrate this, I’m planning to use a Logic App which actually would call the same web job, but passing different parameters.
By doing all above, I’d have a single web job instance, and I’d control job flow by using a Logic App. But here’s come my concern… let’s suppose I only want to execute a specific routine (which is standalone, it doesn’t have a dependency to another routine) because it failed (or maybe I want to debug it), so I have to go the my Web Jobs portal in Azure, and copy the job’s web hook url, set the job parameters as query parameters for call the routine desired, and then call it through a HTTP client. But the problem that I see with this is that isn’t that friendly: I have to do all these stuffs for call a specific job’s routine.
To resolve my above concern I was planning to duplicate the job instance (the duplication term used here it’s not for scaling, it’s for flexibility), and hardcode the routine’s name into each job duplication. The only pros that I see is run a specific routine by just going directly to its respective job instance, and click in “Run” button (Azure Portal). But also, the cons that I see here is that I’m duplicating the same source code (the same binaries), but just passing a different parameter (in this case routine’s name), so in term of maintainability, it’s a pain because if something changes in the job source code, I have to redeploy “routines count” times for consistency (all jobs are running under the same source code).
So should I sacrifice code maintainability (redeploy many times the same source code, and play with job parameters) for get a friendly way for job execution, or not? I’d like to hear your opinion! If there’s more information needed, please let me know!
If travelling around Norway via train using pre-booked tickets from nsb.no, are the tickets explicitly ONLY valid for the stated train departure, or would they be valid on an equivalent route?
eg. If I miss an r10 train from Oslo airport to Oslo S, could I catch any r10 train? Any similar train (eg. the r11)? Or would I pay a penalty?
I am investigating whether Docusign API allows for the template fields to expand dynamically according to the data that needs to be pulled in. This is NOT signature fields. I am referring to fields that populate a template (the client wants to create contract documents of which some contracts may have very big ‘services’ sections that will take up more room than a designated template design will allow.
Does Docusign API allow for dynamic field size increase?