Language…
11 users online: Cristian Cardoso, dotCoockie, DPBOX, Golden Yoshi, Green, Lsh0426, Maw, signature_steve, Sweetdude,  Telinc1, Torchkas - Guests: 259 - Bots: 422
Users: 64,795 (2,377 active)
Latest user: mathew

Resource Dependencies and incompatibilities

There is something that I think it's necessary for this site, and it's a more transparent handling of the dependencies of each resource. For this purpose, I propose a new submission field which shows exactly that. For instance, if resource A depends on resource B to function, you could have something like this:



To give another example, pretend A depends on B, but there is also C which is newer and has more features than B. In this case, the recommended dependency would be resource C.

In a related note, it would also be very useful to have another field for incompatibilities in patches so the user knows what to avoid if they decide to apply a certain patch. For example, the patch "Mario Tile 8x8 GFX DMAer" is incompatible with the patch "32x32 Player," so both should have a field indicating said incompatiblity with each other.

This might take a lot of work, but I think it would be worth it for the end user.

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

Youtube
Twitter
SMWControlLibX GitHub
My Discord Server
Snestorage where you can download my resources
I support this suggestion. Makes life much easier.
I mean, as long as resource B/C/D/E is hosted here... I believe it won't take much work (emphasis on "believe")
Windowless ride, feeling alive
Are you alive or just breathing?
I support this suggestion.

Given the number of resources and users who designed them, it could be hard work to fill in the field. But adding the field to the database should not be too figety, should it?

Having worked with simple mySQL stuff, I know some re-design can be done in database, some other not. Adding a new field referencing multiple items of the same databse is one of the possible things, as I think.

The work to get the field filled and accurate would then require to let the moderators do it (given they have knowledge of everything they've moderated), or use the userbase to let them update their things, which is also long. Even the user who tried two ressources together could submit an incompatibility issue in a comment and have it validated and added to the entry.
i recommended something akin to resource dependencies a few months ago, and i still think it'd be a great idea. for all those graphics submissions with the tag "patch needed" - it'd be nice to actually have a direct link to which patches are needed. or for custom sprite graphics that have a resource dependency to sprites hosted on the site, for example.
Two things worth discussing about this topic, that I brought up previously in this other thread, are that some depended resources wouldn't have a link since they'd be bundled with the submission (for example, a hex edit .asm that must be applied) and the possibility that such a system would encourage submitters to specify what other resources are needed but not why they are needed in the first place (and what they do in the first place). As I said there, the more information on what the user will be inserting in their hack, the better.

Not saying I'm fully against the idea, but I do think it needs to be thought of better in advance. I suggest, for example, along with the resources, forcing a parenthesis in the field in the lines of "(see Description for more details)" to force submitters to go into detail about why their submission requires extra resources from the site or what resources are bundled with it and what they do to justify their inclusion.

So basically it'd look like this if it'd need resources from the site's sections:

Resources required: Resource A, Resource B, (see Description for more details)


Or maybe just like this if it'd only need resources bundled with it:

Resources required: (see Description for more details)