Mod Api Discussion (by Mojang)

[Elevatator]

I think it´s interesting.
http://www.minecraftforum.net/#article_534
Mainly it´s about a discussion about the Mod Api. Mojang wants to speak with the community.
"Various representative from the many different modding groups within the Minecraft community"
What do you think how good will it be for the Api?
At least it shows that they are working on it and that the Api is not dead.

[Elevatator]

Since it´s mentioned in the news thread, I think it fits there better.
Feel free to lock.

[Urian]

Unlocked again. Keep the discussion about this here so the news thread doesn't get cluttered up.

[Sarudak]

It didn't sound like they were that interested in individual modders but more getting representatives from mod platforms... Seems like an odd way to go about things actually.

[FlowerChild]

It didn't sound like they were that interested in individual modders but more getting representatives from mod platforms... Seems like an odd way to go about things actually.

The hope is probably that the API people are already aware of the kinds of requests they get for API features.

Anyways, it's not the kind of thing I generally participate in.

[duartemad]

I have the bunker all set up for the hell that will break lose on the MC Forums

[Sarudak]

The hope is probably that the API people are already aware of the kinds of requests they get for API features.

Anyways, it's not the kind of thing I generally participate in.

Hum... It just seems to me like it would make the most sense to figure out what current features of APIs are being used by the most used mods right now and implement those first. And I think Btw would be among those most used mods...

[morvelaira]

Yes, but the API makers would have better aggregate data about that sort of thing. FlowerChild could help, but wouldn't be the ideal source. They did mention that this will be the first of several such "meetings", so no worries.

[FlowerChild]

Hum... It just seems to me like it would make the most sense to figure out what current features of APIs are being used by the most used mods right now and implement those first. And I think Btw would be among those most used mods...

That functionality is already well known and has even been stated as planned by Mojang. I don't think I need to be there just to state the obvious :)

[walker_boh_65]

That functionality is already well known and has even been stated as planned by Mojang. I don't think I need to be there just to state the obvious :)

You sure about that? :)

[FlowerChild]

You sure about that? :)

Well, I'm already stating the obvious in the MCF news thread, so hopefully that is sufficient.

[Folrig]

Is it possible for an API to have to many hooks?

[FlowerChild]

Is it possible for an API to have to many hooks?

Not really if it's part of the official code-base. For an external API, yes, it can definitely happen. You may remember this was one of my objections to what was happening with the Forge when I left.

[Folrig]

Not really if it's part of the official code-base. For an external API, yes, it can definitely happen. You may remember this was one of my objections to what was happening with the Forge when I left.

I think I remember. Something about specific hooks for specific features in a specific mod.

This is my ignorance showing, but what is stopping Mojang from adding hooks for every game element?

[PatrickSJ]

This is my ignorance showing, but what is stopping Mojang from adding hooks for every game element?

Good judgement, the ability to estimate effort, and a concern for managing scope creep. Mojang will probably compile a list of what is mentioned, prioritize based on complexity and demand, and evaluate against the planned route.

[sargunv]

An interesting bit of discussion on the irc channel today:

[13:23] <ShaRose> Well, ACTUALLY on topic, have you guys decided on whether you were going to just have a homogeneous block of IDs that could be either blocks or items, and either could be in any location?
[13:23] <Shadow386> ^
[13:23] <Grum> blocks and items have always to be seperated
[13:23] <ShaRose> So is the offset for Item going to be raised or?
[13:24] <Grum> there will not be offsets
[13:24] <Grum> there wont be 'item ids'
[13:24] <Grum> sure for storage
[13:24] <Grum> (ditto for block type ids)
[13:24] <ShaRose> So you are getting rid of them entirely?
[13:24] <Shadow386> Wait wut
[13:24] <Grum> except for storage
[13:25] <ShaRose> How do you plan on storing them internally?
[13:25] <Grum> except for storage <--

Anyone know what he means by: "there wont be item ids"?

[FlowerChild]

Anyone know what he means by: "there wont be item ids"?

The above has me scratching my head as well.

[Sarudak]

Maybe he means that the items and block ids will not share the same ids so there won't be any section of ids classed as item ids? If so it's a funny way of saying that but just from that little snippet I got the idea english might not be his first language.

[FlowerChild]

Maybe he means that the items and block ids will not share the same ids so there won't be any section of ids classed as item ids? If so it's a funny way of saying that but just from that little snippet I got the idea english might not be his first language.

Yeah, but that would require at least an extra bit to indicate what's a block and what's an item, in which case, it's pretty much the same thing as shifting everything anyways.

Guess we'll see. It does make me hopeful that they *finally* may be getting around to addressing this. Maybe even for 1.3.

[thekyz]

They may go with hash keys for storage, it "could" prevent theme from using an id per-say, though they'll have to use some sort of key like the item name to sort them.

[FlowerChild]

They may go with hash keys for storage, it "could" prevent theme from using an id per-say, though they'll have to use some sort of key like the item name to sort them.

Thank you for reminding me of why I don't like discussing programming on these forums.

[Catox]

on a lol note, he clearly reminded me why I would like you to ^__^;

it's not a request, you know, just the expression of some kind of frustration generated by those pieces of technical considerations.
Talking about a problem in a way that is both too vague and not enough makes it both interesting and ungraspable, and makes reader both unable to see what the problem is, and unable to express his lack of understanding... yet he (reader, me) is interested, so he keeps reading, unable to even spot the ones who don't know what they're talking about, and therefore hardly able to filter good and wrong informations in order to extand his understanding of this problem that appears to be so interesting.

aah well, let's just hope this api chat thingy gives good result then :þ

[thekyz]

Thank you for reminding me of why I don't like discussing programming on these forums.

You're welcome I guess -.-

I wouldn't want to go too much OT with this but I said something that stupid ?

[dr_spindizzy]

In this comment on the main thread:
http://www.minecraftforum.net/topic/131 ... __16058682

someone says:

there are other main mods out there... also the maker of btw dosent care about compatibility any more (last time i checked.)

To me this doesn't really seem to be what FC is saying at all! It probably doesn't matter either way and you could just let it go, but I'm flagging it in case anyone more knowledgeable than me wants to comment.

[sargunv]

Some more news about what I posted earlier:

Grum has said that Item / Block IDs will not exist except for Saves, and they would be referenced by a unique string, such as ModID.BlockName. He said something similar for Entity IDs, but he didn't provide clarification on this point.
ShaRose

http://goo.gl/mod/YmzY
(Click "View Responses", ShaRose's comment)