Addon Serial Database Idea

[bn880]

Hello all, I don't post here much as a force of habit, however I think OFPEC is the perfect place to consider an idea I had just recently:

We have a lot of people playing a lot of missions or trying to, where they get missing addon warnings and error messages. This is followed by them not knowing where to get the addon and which version it might be etc.

Auto Addon Server resolves this slightly, honestly not much more than that.

Now, here is my idea;  if we could have a central addon database, maintained preferrably here at OFPEC, where each addon, each variation of an addon, and each mod, has a unique numeric serial number or index assigned to it.

The serial number would function like a MAC address does for NIC's, no duplicates allowed ever, everyone must sign up for it at the same place.

Now, in the cfgPatches section of a config, people could type in that serial number at the end of the name of the addon, so that people can write this number down, type it in to the OFPEC addon cross reference, find it, click on the link and DL the addon from a server.

This is how I think each row for each addon may look like:

Code: [Select]

<index/serial>, <name>, <version>, <maker/team> , <date>, <released>,<relaced by index>,<DL locations>
unique integer, string, string, string, date, boolean, unique integer, string(s)

0000001, "Bn Tracers", "1.24", "bn880", 08/09/2005, true, 0000000, "http:\\blah blah"

^ this is all a rough draft and idea.  Now, if each addon and mod has a seperate and unique serial, we can fairly easily decentralize the download locations to dozens or hundreds of servers.  SQL queries can easily be run on the entries to search for addons.

I do not have any of the web server for this written, nor do I plan to work on this personally.  However I think it is a valuable thing to consider, to have ONE central place to find every addon ALL the time.

The addon makers could apply for their addon serial number before they publish the addon, so that they have time to insert the serial in the cfgPatches section.  Each entry in the DB would need to be administered by someone, as with most other submissions.  An admin could take in a request for a serial, create the entry, and send back to the addon maker the number.

This can extend to Armed Assault, and probably as far as Game2...     Thoughts?

[bn880]

Also I forgot, a place like OFPInfo, or BIS even could be running the centralized database (with links or offloaded DL sites).

The main thing I am concerned with is that this be kept without any requirements for registration besides: author or valid team member submits their addon/mod, it is not an exact duplicate

This is not about requiring things of addon makers, for approval, this is to give them a tool to identify their addon globally, to make it easier for lazy users such as ourselves.   ;D

[Terox]

An automated Registration Site

Addon maker registering would be required to fill out a simple form

Registration Form
NAME:
VERSION:
Previous versions avail: (YES/NO)
MAKERS NAME:
EMAIL: (With option to hide it)
TYPE: Pull down list  eg (MOD / Air / Armour / Weapon / Units / Combination / Misc / Island / Objects)
DESCRIPTION: simple text entry field
LINK: (Verified as a working link  during registration Process)
FILESIZE:
ADDITIONAL ADDONS REQ:
......................................... Serial No
......................................... Name
......................................... Version

__________________________________________________________________

something simple but time consuming enough to deter timewasters and spammers
Some form of anti spam protection, only 1 entry per IP per XXXX amount of time

Emailed Registration Number and requiring validation something on those lines


As an OFP user searching for the addon, they would log onto the site and be able to search either by

Serial Number
OFPEC tag, (which ideally would be in the addon name anyway)
Name of addon
Type

this will then pull up a simple window, with the content filled out in the registration form and the link highlighted to them



An automated link checking system, would monitor the condition of the link and inform an admin, if it went down
(A highlighted message box in the search process would inform the user that the link was down)

But as BN stated, only thing an addon maker has to do to the addon is add a serial number to the Required addons field nothing more than that, or it just simply starts to create unescessary complications

and as we all know, the more complicated it is, the more likely it is to fail



I think its a great idea, and if those technically able to do such a thing, get it together, this could be running before Arma is released, which will be great for the community

[remcen]

a good idea, but too late i'm afraid...
how would you handle already released addons which most missions rely on? would you want the addonmakers to re-release their addons with such a  serial, or would you wanna assign the serials to addons ex post?
anyway, this would be a hell lot of work given the sheer number of addons. and what about the addonmakers that have disappeared - or are out of reach for the english-speaking community?

if realized right from the start then it's a good idea for ArmA i think; in close cooperation with BIS preferably.

[Terox]

Its never too late
From the outset of the OFP Release, of course it would have been better, however thats hindsight.
A good addon making tutorial would have also been welcomed, but that didnt happen either

I am sure that when the OFPEC tag system entered  its initial discussion phase, the same was said

just because previously made addons may not be upgraded by their makers to utilise any such system, does not detract from the fact that overall it would be a worthwhile system

And better a system like this too late, than never at all

The OFP community still flourishes, even in OFP1's twighlight days, and it will continue to grow, so please dont think about the past, think about the next 5 years and the hundreds more addons that will be created that could utilise such a system


MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS
For the web based scripting system, i have no idea, but from a registration point of view, nothing more than a minute or so, and to add the serial to the addon config, even less

Once the system was incorporated, it would i imagine be fairly easy tro manage, as most of it will be automated


ARMA RELEASE

I would also expect, that when Arma is released, that a lot of existing addons may be upgraded to utilise any new entries in the comref or new engine attributes

so preparing such a system in advance would be a very sensible approach

[bn880]

Yes there would be the majority of the old addons which would not be on this database.  But if an addon maker wanted to, they could add the serial in about 20 minutes per addon.

Looking forward is defenately the idea here.  We have two more games coming from BIS in the future at least (we hope), and this would just knock down 90% of the addon searching issues.

[General Barron]

Hmm... interesting idea, although I have serious doubts about the effectiveness of any centralized system like this. In short: it won't work because most addonmakers won't use it.

Perhaps some, or even most, popular/large addon teams will use it properly. But the hundreds of small, single-man addons that are released every damn month will NOT, in general. And, as mentioned, the non-english speaking community will likely be out of reach as well.

OFPEC tags are a great example. Been around since 2002, yet we still see addons released without any sort of tag at all. Or we see addons that have improper/unregistered OFPEC tags, such as bn880's tracers (uses 2-letter, unregistered OFPEC tag).


However, even more revealing is the OFPEC tags listing. This is a single, already existing, centralized location for addonmakers to list their addons. Yet few, if any, addonmakers bother to update the information here. Check out the Finnish Defence Forces tag listing, which says they haven't released anything at all. (For the record,  my listing, which has at least been updated in the past, isn't current either)


I'd say that OFPEC tags are still successful, however. The reason: most addonmakers are aware of the reason why they exist, and so they include something like the tag system in their addons (your improper 2-letter tag is a good example; it gets the job done, even if it isn't 'according to standard' or 'registered').

Basically, the 'spirit' of the tags is alive and kicking, even if the centralized database is cold and dead. The problem I see with your idea, is that there is NOTHING to live on if the database part doesn't end up working.

---------------

The answer, as I see it, lies in the sites that distribute addons. OFP.info has got to be the largest and most popular of these sites. Yet, in some ways it is a nightmare of organization. There are no descriptions for addons... addons are sometimes contained in their 'news archives', and sometimes in their addons section... their addons section is a pain to navigate thru... etc etc ad nauseam.

Contrast this to the OFPEC addons depot, which in many ways is much better organized. Addons are organized into more catagories... you can see how many are contained in each catagory... you can change the display of each catagory (according to release date, author, etc)... addons have both author descriptions, and reviews... each entry has info like author website/email, links to other addons by that author, date released, version, and so on...

In short, it is much easier to find the right addon on OFPEC then on ofp.info. The only problem, obviously, is that OFPEC's addon collection is small and outdated, whereas ofp.info is about the largest and up-to-date there is.

So I think effort would be best spent getting ofp.info to organize their addons better, while getting OFPEC to update their addon depot. Perhaps other sites will follow suit.

Just my 2 cents.

------------

APPENDUM

Part of the problem, obviously, also lies on the addonmaker's shoulders themselves. Terrible readme's are possibly the biggest problem. Many don't include the version of the addon, for example. Often there is no reason to save the readme after downloading, since it contains no useful info. (Later on, if I download a mission that uses that addon, I would have no way of knowing if I already have the proper version.)

If the community as a whole would be critical about the readme (as they are about the rest of the addon), then the quality of readmes WOULD improve, as a whole.

The same goes for mission readmes. Authors need to include the required version of the addon, multiple links to the addon, the filesize, etc, so that players can be sure they downloaded the right one.

[bn880]

Wrong.

Tags require a lot of work to implement.  A serial does not.   Tags are for conflict resolution where as a serial and a central database is what makes someone's addon easily accessible.

People will use it if people know about it, much more so than the IMO complicated requirements of OFPEC tagging.

Please do not confuse this topic.  I'm talking about a serial number for any addon.  Not 20 million things you'd like addon makers to do, that is exactly the point, I don't want them to be bothered with anything beyond a serial number, so that people can get their addon from wherever it is hosted.  

There is a single purpose here, if it fails it fails, this is not a mission for compromise, it's a goal for making addon searching easy and centralized, which should have been done by BIS since day 1.

[macguba]

There is no such thing as OFPEC tagging.    The tag system was invented by OFPEC its true, but it was officially adopted by BIS.   The system is called "OFP Tags".    OFPEC is simply the place where tags are registered.   They are essential to prevent conflicts between addons, and if they are implemented as the addon is created cause little or no work.  (Changing an existing addon to use a tag is tedious:  however it is not complicated.)

However, what we are talking about here are two different questions.  Firstly, addon recognition, and secondly finding the wretched thing.    

Recognition does not require a new serial system.   If an addon uses its OFP tag correctly, and in addition incorporates a version number in it the approprate places, then by definition that constitutes a unique reference.   In other words perhaps the tag system should be extended to require the inclusion of version number.

Finding addons is always going to be a problem.    Having a central registry is a nice idea, but the difficulty is always these obscure addons which are unlikely to have been registered in the first place.   There have been a couple of attempts at creating such a registry, but they fizzled out as soon as the protagonists realised the size of the job.   There are a lot of addons out there.

However, these problems largely go away if mission makers include correct addon details in their mission readmes.    The underlying problem is that too many mission makers, and too many addon makers, are committed to producing rubbishy work.   Until the community as a whole decides not to use substandard material, these problems will continue to arise whatever solutions we attempt.

Nevertheless, this is an interesting and valuable idea.  It's probably too late for widespread use in OFP (although we could perhaps get it up and running for OFP if only as a testbed), but it would be nice to get all these things decided and appropriate arrangements ready for ArmA.  

[General Barron]

...it's a goal for making addon searching easy and centralized, which should have been done by BIS since day 1.

I know that is the goal, and I'm saying that it just will not work.

The problem is that the community is so large, so diverse, and so de-centralized. Therefore any centralized solution is bound to fail. The solution has to also be de-centralized. Macguba said it perfectly:

The underlying problem is that too many mission makers, and too many addon makers, are committed to producing rubbishy work.  Until the community as a whole decides not to use substandard material, these problems will continue to arise whatever solutions we attempt.

Increasing the standards of the community is what we should work on. This is a huge task, of course, but not impossible, as the OFP tag system (corrected myself) has proven.

[Planck]

I don't have much to add to what has already been said.

The idea is nice, but I can't see anyone wanting to take on a mamoth task like this, this late in the game.

We have a lot of people playing a lot of missions or trying to, where they get missing addon warnings and error messages. This is followed by them not knowing where to get the addon and which version it might be etc.

My view is that the mission makers should provide links to any addons that they have used in the readme that comes with the mission.
If people don't read the readmes then they only have themselves to blame if they come up against this problem.

If a used addon introduces an addon dependancy then this would have been discovered during beta testing, unless of course there was no beta testing for said mission.

The problem, in many cases comes from laziness basically. Too lazy to read a readme, too lazy or can't be bothered to beta test, too lazy to write a readme.

The idea is a good one, but it would involve a huge amount of work for very little gain and you would still be relying on the people who make addons etc to change their lazy ways.

Of course for future games AA or OFP2 it might be worth considering and encouraging the community to adopt something along these lines.



Planck

[Mikero]

I'm following this thread with considerable interest.

First off, I dont agree with GenBarron's experience that TAGS aren't succesful or widely used (that's my paraphasing, GBarron did not say that exactly)

I have, for reasons of my own, created a database of what is now around 500 addons, that's a big number in anyone's language, with admittedly many more than that 'out there'. The database was a horse before the cart kind of thing, an addon went into the database if it was used in a mssion, not, because it had pink snowflakes. There's any number of addons out there as re-badged BMP's with someone's country logo on it, and have NEVER been used in a mission.

My experience based on above is that TAGS are in fact *heavily* used. Much less than 10% of the dbase contains non-tag addons, and there's nothing I did or tweaked or crippled or discarded, that biased it. If an addon was used in a mission I played, I included it. Period.

There are instead, some popluar addons out their not using tags, which in the ordinary course of events would simply be ignored. My experience here is similar to everyone else's, without tags, you get multiple conflicts and almost invetibly stop using non-tag addons. BUT, the very few that are used, are used becuase they're too good to ignore.

Addon makers use the tag system because it is, convenient to them. A rose by any other name smells the same, but they very quickly learn that two identical roses having different perfumes aren't the same. So it's better to name THEIR addon something sensible so that THEY can use it.

The TAG system in it's current form, works, in my opinion, as best as it's ever going to get, short of Bis enforcing new rules in the engine to make it work 'better'.

So, on to serialisation. The principle purpose here is to always be able to grab latest 'n greatest. A secondary issue is to allow backward compatibilty. Eg some addons are less equal than others and some missions won't work with the 'improved' ones.

As I see it working....

An addon maker supplies us the addon. He can called it pink girraffes.zip for all we care.

The addon maker MUST have an  'official' bis/ofpec tag.

He 'registers' an addon name at the time of submission of THAT addon.

eg MIK (mikero)

addon OZSAS  (australian sas)

hit the submit button.

We tag the addon with a serial number. And one of the better 'serial numbers' are date based. 020205 eg

Our, Ofpec's filing system knows this addon (and it's consequent url) as

MIK_OZSAS_020205.zip

along with

SNY_OZSAS_xxxxxx
HYK_OZSAS_xxxxxx

ie. addon makers do not have to 'wurri' their names are in conflict

The submission form itself auto-replaces sumbissions same name / earlier vintage, or has a checkbox to preserve both.

This way, we aren't interested in how / why the addon is revised, or worse, what strange naming convention the maker gives his stuff.

This way, a searcher doesn't have to worry either. They scan the base, if the serial number's 'bigger' than what they already have, well .....

And, the addon maker doesn't have to fuss either. (S)he has a minimum of things than have to be filled in and has no opportunity TO GET IT WRONG!

[Fragorl]

Was going to reply to this, but ran out of time yesterday :/

Basically, what Mikero just said sums it up brilliantly. I think that the more awareness there is about the tagging system (especially if it's enforced as a necessity when submitting an addon to one of the larger sites, eg OFP.info, or even ofpec.com, where prospective addon makers want their work to end up after all) AND the simpler it is to navigate the submission interface (Author name. Addon name. Submit new Addon OR Update existing Addon.), the more successful the idea will be.

[General Barron]

Perhaps I should illustrate my point. What problem are you trying to solve? The problem of tracking down an addon, with the correct version, right?

A serial number system would require that all addonmakers, following a few guidelines, submit something to one central location. If they did that, the system would work, and the problem would be solved.

However, the problem could be solved today, no work required, if all addonmakers would submit something they already have to one central location: That is, if everyone would submit their addons to OFPEC, following proper guidelines, then the problem would no longer exist from that day forward.

---------------------

Obviously that isn't happening. Nor do I think it would happen if we 'asked nicely' around the official forums and other sites. Nor do I think a serial database would happen either, no matter how nicely we asked.

Addons get 'published' all the time, in many different ways. Sometimes they are released on the official forums, with DL links on rapidshare or other temporary hosting. Sometimes they are submitted to established websites, like ofpec. Sometimes they are posted on personal websites, without mention elsewhere. Sometimes they are released on non-english sites/forums. Often addons are found by websites like ofp.info, and then published on that site, independent of the author. The list goes on and on.

This system would require that everyone 'publish' their addon in one specific way, in addition to however else they publish it. I just don't see how that will happen.

--------------

My point about OFP tags wasn't that they didn't work. Rather, my point is that the centralized database of tags is a failure; just like I think any centralized solution to this problem is bound to fail.

The tags idea itself has been successful, not because a central location like OFPEC registers them, but because the community as a whole recognizes the need for them, and doesn't much tolerate addons that don't use them.

If we could get the community to also recognize the need to have proper readmes, including the version of an addon, dependencies, etc, then we would be another step towards the solution. If we could get websites like ofp.info to recognize the need for better organization and description of addon collections, then we would be taking a step in the right direction. If we could get mission makers to realize the need for completely and properly describing required addons (including version, links, etc), then we would be taking a step in the right direction.

The list goes on and on, and I'd be happy to share my thoughts on this subject, including how to 'spread the gospel' to the community.

[hardrock]

If we could get the community to also recognize the need to have proper readmes, including the version of an addon, dependencies, etc, then we would be another step towards the solution. If we could get websites like ofp.info to recognize the need for better organization and description of addon collections, then we would be taking a step in the right direction. If we could get mission makers to realize the need for completely and properly describing required addons (including version, links, etc), then we would be taking a step in the right direction.

Well, that's not really necessary, as exactly this weak point is planned to be removed on the planned successor of ofp.info for ArmA.

As you said, the whole centralized system fails as no-one uses it. What I think would be necessary to offer as much features to any mod or addon maker, so that he gets interested in offering and distributing his addons on a certain site like ofp.info. And once people are attracted and want to use your site, you can force them to follow some minor rules, as using tags or IDs.

The problem with OPFEC's tag repository is IMO that it's the only thing many addon makers use this site for (not all, of course). Thus it's wasted time for many of them to come here just to register a tag or update the entry later.

These people need to be attracted by other features, so they visit the site regularly and also update their profiles.

Much of it is planned for the new ofp.info site and the idea about addon IDs fits in perfectly. The last problem is that such a system requires time to make it. And time is expensive, nowadays.