mr.devolver Posted April 29, 2020 Share Posted April 29, 2020 Hello everyone, We all are following certain standard xml file name structure like entitygroups.xml, entityclasses.xml etc., but it wasn't always this way. For example there are many Alpha 16.4 mods that used just one xml file called with the same name as the mod itself and it contained all the xpaths it needed to assign individual parts of the code into each of the categories. Although it may be a bit confusing for modders at first and as a modding approach it may be a bit harder than following the standard file naming convention, on the other hand I figured it could come in handy in some specific scenarios like when you want to create a mod and provide several different alternative configurations users can choose from and all they would really have to do is pick one that suits them best and copy it into the Config directory. The advantage of this would be that you could use any name for that xml file without need to create separate directories or even separate mods just for all those different configurations. I would like to create a mod that would work like this, but since I haven't seen any recent mod that wouldn't strictly follow standard file naming convention, I must wonder if it still works? Does anyone know? Thanks in advance! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FreakUK Posted April 30, 2020 Share Posted April 30, 2020 Modlets must follow the file naming convention. Any changes to blocks.xml have to go in a blocks.xml in the modlet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr.devolver Posted April 30, 2020 Author Share Posted April 30, 2020 2 hours ago, FreakUK said: Modlets must follow the file naming convention. Any changes to blocks.xml have to go in a blocks.xml in the modlet. Thanks. That's some bad news for my idea. I guess it used to be easier in A16.4 then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FreakUK Posted May 2, 2020 Share Posted May 2, 2020 No worries. I actually prefer it this way to be honest. Makes keeping track of changes simpler, and makes for cleaner mods. But to each their own and all that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr.devolver Posted May 3, 2020 Author Share Posted May 3, 2020 On 5/2/2020 at 4:59 PM, FreakUK said: No worries. I actually prefer it this way to be honest. Makes keeping track of changes simpler, and makes for cleaner mods. But to each their own and all that Don't get me wrong, I like it cleaner too, but that was until I realized that "clean" is not necessarily "better" for our cause. I mean, I guess you had both in A16.4 and it was up to you which way you went, but then they decided to make it more strict, so that everyone must follow the same path. Good, it gives the mods certain standard everyone must follow so that in the end all the mods look like they were created by the same cookie cutter which is fine, but in the same time we lost the ability to use: SpawnrateX2.xml, SpawnrateX4.xml, SpawnrateX6.xml where you as the end-user could pick one of them to copy into your mods and be done with it. Just an example... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laz Man Posted May 3, 2020 Share Posted May 3, 2020 I think what you are talking about is doable. Depends on how you organize your work. For example, I can segment my blocks mod into 3 separate xpath mod folders allowing users to plug in any combination of the 3 to their liking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meganoth Posted May 3, 2020 Share Posted May 3, 2020 You may or may not be aware of that: It was part of SDX before, but vanilla xpath support started in A17 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.