Addon naming policy discussion

[celery 8]

From what I've understood, the addon world is a wild west of naming policies with no set rules or standards. If that's correct, would you think that there is need for such a standard?

I think so. I remember that in Flashpoint the addons were nicely named but I haven't downloaded too many ArmA addons to see what the current situation is. I want to start a discussion about what should be included in the standard and how. I'm not the addon expert here so I hope there will be a more experienced addon author, hoster or user of some kind to take over from here.

Here is a basic filename with the author's TAG:

tag_myfirstaddon.pbo

The first question is, should the whole name be written with lower case only and underscores for spaces?

The second question is, is there need for other indicators than the author's registered tag and the name of their addon? Maybe a letter between the tag and the name to indicate if the addon is a vehicle, weapon, unit, graphical mod or other. Like this:

tag_v_scorpion90.pbo

And the type indicator letters would be:

V - Vehicle

W - Weapon

U - Unit

G - Graphics

S - Sound

O - Other

Discussion is free and suggestions and contributions are most welcome. However a standard of some kind has to be set sooner or later, preferably enforced by the most prestigious addon sites.

[BraTTy 0]

Good idea , I had dreams of very descriptive addon names too.

Unfortunately there is a limit and problems of too long of paths.

I had to shorten names and not use many directories.

Obviously still a problem if your look at Armas pbos (the ca names etc..)

[raedor 8]

OFPEC tags -- yes.

Rest -- no. It's too much bureaucracy, you should know what you installed or at least recognise the file name.

Afaik it was said that the path length problem is fixed meanwhile.

[Col. Faulkner 0]

Wasn't the OFP tag system sufficient?

[Messiah 2]

I don't think there's any point at all - the addon maker tag provides enough of a standard to prevent conflicts and the problems that arise with them and mod folders keep addons filed and tidy.

its a solution to a problem that doesn't exist - I've never had a problem working out what pbo's are, because 99% of authors are intelligent enough to know to name their pbo's with something sensible that relates to the addon... how many cases have you seen where someone's named the pbo tag_bigyellowfairy.pbo and its turned out to be a M1A2?

I can understand the idea of a naming convention for MP files for ease of listing and seeing whats required, but not everything needs a standard... if anything, beat the idea of proper UV unwrapping and texture panels into people first, before embarking on naming conventions.

Quote[/b] ]The first question is, should the whole name be written with lower case only and underscores for spaces?

proper IT custom would have lowercase and underscores, but considering it doesn't affect arma or your pc then there's no problem whatever someone wishes to do.

Quote[/b] ]It's too much bureaucracy, you should know what you installed or at least recognise the file name.

exactly

[Skaven 0]

My opinion is that the old OFP tag was more than enough.

ex: TAG_whatever.pbo

However, it's important to notice that this TAG must be placed in all config.cpp classes and not only on the name of the pbo or else the problem persists.

[raedor 8]

Quote[/b] ]The first question is, should the whole name be written with lower case only and underscores for spaces?

proper IT custom would have lowercase and underscores, but considering it doesn't affect arma or your pc then there's no problem whatever someone wishes to do.

It does affect ArmA or at least OFP linux servers, as linux uses directories case sensitive (so I guess ArmA linux servers will have similar problems).

@Skaven: Sure, the tag has to be used wherever something can be accessed from outside: config classes (and by that model names, as they are classes in CfgModels), global variables etc etc.

[Messiah 2]

We used to play with an OFP linux server, I am aware of the uppercase problems it causes - I was talking more on the subject of one's personal PC... anyone who runs a dedicated linux server would be more than aware of the problems of uppercase and can rectify the 'problem' - i.e. spend 5 seconds changing things to lowercase

[raedor 8]

We used to play with an OFP linux server, I am aware of the uppercase problems it causes - I was talking more on the subject of one's personal PC... anyone who runs a dedicated linux server would be more than aware of the problems of uppercase and can rectify the 'problem' - i.e. spend 5 seconds changing things to lowercase

Correct, just wanted the problem to be mentioned here

[Messiah 2]

of course - conversely its as easy for the addon maker to stick to lowercase, so I would say that would be the only worthwhile addition to the current ofp tag system, all-be-it one thats not considerably crucial

[da12thMonkey 1943]

I'd agreee that a proper addon filename should tell you who made it and what it contains, however I think the majority of addon-makers manage to do this, and there is little necessity in imposing strict rules on addon filenames.

Looking through most of my old OFP addons, the names of the pbos are sufficiently descriptive to suggest what they add, and so long as I know who made them (the OFPEC TAG system is KEY) I could easilly find whichever addon I wanted to. Modfolders also help a great deal. Having a file called something like UKF_W_Weapons.pbo just for the sake of standardisation seems a bit excessive to me.

Really, the only additional information I would like to have to hand about the addons I have, is which version of the addon the pbo contains. This isn 't something that can be done with the filename however, it's something I have to keep a record of myself, unless the addonmaker choses to include a descriptive datafile inside the .pbo.

[BraTTy 0]

Yes a good note...

I try to put the readme file inside the pbo

I think that is very important

[JdB 151]

We (as in Invasion 1944) used this, as it made working with files alot easier. It's an interesting thing for a modteam to do, also from a working perspective, but it's not something that any addonmaker (as in single addons) should be "required" to do imo.

[Snake Man 407]

should the whole name be written with lower case only and underscores for spaces?

Underscores for spaces, absolutely.

[Synide 0]

@Celery...

Quote[/b] ]However a standard of some kind has to be set sooner or later, preferably enforced by the most prestigious addon sites.

Really? And why is that?

And, how would you propose this supposed 'community standard' would be 'enforced' (practically)?

I commend your initiative, however you're jumping ahead to a supposed 'solution' to a 'problem' you have not entirely defined.

For instance...

Is it that you have difficulty with current community addons for ArmA that the name of the pbo does not entirely reflect what the addon is intended to do?

With missions one is dealing with a finite number of possibilities, so it is relatively 'easy' to manage in practical terms a 'community based' naming convention.

I agree with Messiah...

Quote[/b] ]I can understand the idea of a naming convention for MP files for ease of listing and seeing whats required, but not everything needs a standard... if anything, beat the idea of proper UV unwrapping and texture panels into people first, before embarking on naming conventions.

If anything the main problem with OFP/ArmA is what I refer to as 'PBO Hell'. A term most windows programmers will be entirely familiar with in respect to DLL's.

Specifically it has to do with VERSION CONTROL that the AddOn maker has in place and the method by with that version control is disseminated to the ArmA community.

Atm, I'm working on a 'Tool' that may (or may not) help with this issue. It's a modified version of a Clan tool I created to help members 'keep their house in order' so to speak with OFP. But that's a discussion for another thread.

[dm 9]

I would have to agree with Messiah - the OFPEC tags are plenty.

Ii anything was to be enforced - lowercase and underscores would be of paramount importance. As well as readme naming along the lines of: tag_addonname_readme.txt

BAS will be adhering to these "standards" (as will JAM)

[Messiah 2]

aaah yes - readme's should deffinately be named to match the addon they relate to - saves alot of head scratching and searching to find the correct one in a big folder of them

[raedor 8]

Yep, good note about the readme.

As for addon versions, I usually init a variable like MAP_MiscVersion (= "pboname" - .pbo ending + "version") which contains the version (ingame) and in most cases I add an entry addonVersion in the CfgPatches class of the addon.