.dll CC's Yes or No

[LiquidAtoR]

Should .dll CC's be allowed, Yes or No.

If you vote it would be much appreciated if you could clarify WHY you voted yes or no.
I will be taking some posts from the HB2 release thread to here in a moment.

 

[LiquidAtoR]

All relevant posts from the HB2 Release Map topic. If I forgot any, let me know, and I'll cross reference em.

As I've read the blogs, the CC's that are in .dll form will not be supported by HB2.
May I ask what is the reason for this step by the developers of HB2?

This will mean FPSWare's, Mordd's, Nesox, and DarkBen's CC's will NOT be working with HB2 (TheOneCC, Convalesce, Cimmerian, Khryses, DBWarlock amongst others).
These are all the better more complex CC's and also nearly all CC's I'm using the most of all of the released CC's.

A answer would be greatly appreciated.
Regards, Liquid.

Its hard for me to comment on this since I was on the side that wanted DLL's, but the decision came from the top of the project. As for their reasoning, to sum up: There are no advantages to using a DLL that outweigh the possible disadvantages. Whether or not they want to comment further is up to them, but to the best of my knowledge this hasn't changed.

I'm with Ski on this one - obviously. I won't go into detail I'll simply say ski has summed it up nicely.

Seeing as how fpsware already said his "The One CC" is currently working in HB2 and is heavily reliant on it, I suspect that the HB2 version is no longer a DLL.

Its running my source code. Though, I won't be releasing it in this state. but as for what "state" it will be released in I don't yet know.

Well, let's sketch a situation...

I get my hands on FPS's CC, but I don't like how something works.
With my unlimited knowledge (of how I get a pizza out of the oven, and the french fries and a burger from the MaC) I start changing stuff around in the code below the part that says don't change anything below this line.
Then it breaks (what a surprise) and I want support from FPS.
FPS is pulling out those last few hairs he has left to figure out wtf is wrong.
It was not him, it was me.

This would not happen if it was a dll that I can't touch.

Support from the developers of the CC's that are in dll would be much more accurate and easier than when it's a .cs file where every dick with a stick can start deleting and adding items.

I would say that's a pretty "pro .dll CC's" argument where all coders can find themselves in that distribute their CC this way.

I think I get the reason from HB developers NOT willing to allow the dl CC's.
Because it's possible to run malicious software trough the dll files.

IMHO, aint that the responsibility of the users whether or not to use a CC in .dll form (and check the .dll themselves).
Make a disclaimer in each CC post with a .dll CC, that HB doesn't take responsibility and blabla, you know what I mean.

I really think we as users should have the choice whether or not to use a .dll CC.
If you don't want to use it there's always the standard CC's and some CC's that are released in .cs format.

Leave the choice to us, make a poll for it.
Let us users choose.

If malicious software is run trough a .dll for which you hold no responsibility, then what can be the problem.
Otherwise point 1 man from the HB Dev team to compile the CC's and release them on the forums (Keep tony's mind away from the mute buttons so he has something else to do ).
Either way I hate to see Cimmerian, Convalesce, DBWarlock, Khryses, THeOneCC not being able to use anymore untill they updated it.

We finally get a new HB with working battlegrounds, and we loose the use of the CC's that makes HB run so great.

And as suggested we (CC Developers) are willing to provide our source code to the developers for review and to even compile into DLLs jus so they can be assured that no malicious code is present.

I'd recommend starting a new thread in the Dev forums about it so we can keep this one clear for questions about the release stuff.

What blog did you see about the DLL's anyway?

http://www.buddyforum.de/entry.php?176-Convalesce-Update-(4-17-10)
Mordd's Blog ofcourse. He wrote about not accepting .dll CC's and the problems he and FPS is having.

 

[ski]

Thanks for consolidating this all up. Rather the people in charge saw this then jumped into that thread and started wondering wtf was going on.

 

[Nomfather]

Im all for DLL's.
If people want to protect their stuff then they should have an option to do it.
Viewing it from HB owners view i can see why they wouldnt want it, one dodgy dll and its over for them.

Easilly fixed by people being unable to post in the plugin/cc forum, much like the guides forum, only Developers of HB can post there.
Have the CC/plugin coders send their code uncompiled to one of those, who can see it, scan through for harmful coding.
If safe, compile to DLL and post it in the correct section.

 

[ZoOoOoM]

I voted yes.

Most of the .DLL CC's / plugins are made by trustworthy members of the community, and i trust them anyway

And the solution Nomfather suggested, is pretty good.
It would slow down the release of the CC/Plugin by a day or two, but at least the Devs/staff will be satisfied.

 

[Nomfather]

It would slow down the release of the CC/Plugin by a day or two, but at least the Devs/staff will be satisfied.

The Public wouldn't know any better really, as long as it isn't released in their eyes its still being worked on.
Wouldn't be any rush.

 

[style1one]

Easilly fixed by people being unable to post in the plugin/cc forum, much like the guides forum, only Developers of HB can post there.
Have the CC/plugin coders send their code uncompiled to one of those, who can see it, scan through for harmful coding.
If safe, compile to DLL and post it in the correct section.

I can see this as a two way sword.. It takes the devs time to go through each cc vs working on the bot itself. Yet at the same time it allows for there protection of having a bad dll introduced to the community.

Maybe have a member of the community be promoted to just handle such a thing as nomfather has sugjested to go over said dll codes ?

 

[ski]

Btw, I'm going to remain neutral in this thread to serve both sides. Try to keep it civil please, and make your arguments clear and concise. Most of these have been brought up in the background by various people. I'd rather this thread just serve as information and ideas than a war.

 

[LiquidAtoR]

It's a shame though that the one person so far that voted No, didn't motivate his vote.

 

[Mordd]

Unfortunatly this poll and topic will have no effect on the decision that was made.

Ive been on the fence about code protection for quite some time. My CCs used to come in open cs form and that worked fine. But now my code is much more complicated and I actually have a working core that can be applied to any meele class. The idea of someone changing a few variables, moving some code around and renaming the CC to suit their needs and release it just makes my skin crawl. Ive been months and months working on the core to get it where I want and I dont want some pre pubesent hacking up my code for their 5 minutes of fame. The real devs of this community started with 1 line, and that 1 line has turned into tens of thousands.

On the other hand. What is the point in code protection? Tomoro I could be history and the show must go on. If someone really wants my code all they have to do is reverse it and they have it.

Either way. The top devs have argued, and lost. Case is closed according to us.

 

[ski]

Unfortunatly this poll and topic will have no effect on the decision that was made.

Ive been on the fence about code protection for quite some time. My CCs used to come in open cs form and that worked fine. But now my code is much more complicated and I actually have a working core that can be applied to any meele class. The idea of someone changing a few variables, moving some code around and renaming the CC to suit their needs and release it just makes my skin crawl. Ive been months and months working on the core to get it where I want and I dont want some pre pubesent hacking up my code for their 5 minutes of fame. The real devs of this community started with 1 line, and that 1 line has turned into tens of thousands.

On the other hand. What is the point in code protection? Tomoro I could be history and the show must go on. If someone really wants my code all they have to do is reverse it and they have it.

Either way. The top devs have argued, and lost. Case is closed according to us.

Pretty much exactly how it went down. This thread was bound to happen at some point so I'm just happy its with intelligent conversation.

 

[Nomfather]

Pretty much exactly how it went down. This thread was bound to happen at some point so I'm just happy its with intelligent conversation.

We've got a decent community here, im fairly sure this conversation will remain civil.
What will be interesting to see is a Dev response, get a view on the situation from their perspective.

 

[CodenameG]

heres the thing, i like it because its one package in one place, easy to more or distribute. not only that but it keeps users from making rouge versions of the CC, and reposting them. or uploading them telling you they fixed it. and you having to go though a couple of hundred lines of code to find the changes. if theres a change to be made there has to be a reason for it. i noticed that users that dont have the source to play around with are more vocal to what changes they want to see.

 

[snoweey]

IMHO the devs should be allowed to dsitrubite the code however they see fit. However this is not an open source BOT it is developed and maintained by a core group of people who from what i can tell put there heart and soul into every release just as i'm sure the devs do the same with there cc's. it is up tp the dev's to decided what is best for the BOT and what will serve the community the best, and if they pefer open cs format then so be it.

Unfortunately I do not see this debate ending any time soon.

 

[MDurner11]

I mean it makes sense to me... a dev releases THEIR hand made code. They don't want noobs (like me) trying to find a crappy fix to an issue, and then breaking their CC, then complaining about it. It has been seen many times (For example Mordd's Paladin CC), that through the config button in HB that users can customize the CC to their liking, while still not having complete access to the full code. Mordd and all the devs have also been very connected to the community and what they want to see change in the CC.

This also causes a hassle for all the devs to get it into a readable format. An unnecessary hassle.

And as stated before, anyone that REALLY wants the .dll code could reverse it.

 

[matt01ss]

I personally prefer the CC's in .cs form. There are times that I want to make a change to the way the CC is handling combat for example. However, most of the CC's are compiled and I can't do that. I understand the fear of people mucking around in the code and causing problems, but so be it; it becomes that person's problem if they modify the code.

I would say to simply not support anyone making changes, if you break it you buy it type of thing.

The biggest downfall, and I agree with, is the theft of code. But honestly, these CC's are not for sale, they are created for a community for free and therefore I believe should be open source. If you don't want anyone to steal your code, then don't write it and release it.

 

[DarkBen]

I'm one of the Devs that started My First CC by modifying another CC. Then i learned a lot in the process, and started it over clean, rewrote everything to my liking.

I would like to have Dll allowed, because my code evolved to a point it's not a single .cs file anymore. But i do release it with the Source along, only because i learned to code that way. And i cannot be tired to thanks nesox to his priedt cc, that i leanerd so much from his coding, and i did copy some of his, and organized my source in multiples CC, along with the UI i created for it.

I must say, that DLL is great for release, but i had the benefit of the open source before and for that reason i plan to keep my source free.
But i do agree with fpsware when it comes to people who came in here change a line of the code and re-launch it, because i was one that started with that and after i started a new one from scratch, i saw how bad that can be.

If hb devs took its dll support out, they had theyr reasons.

 

[rattlerviper]

People deserve the right to protect their work. For safety sake use the review like mentioned above.

 

[Morga]

I'm .dll challenged, well let's face it, I'm anything coding challenged. I totally have to rely on the fine folks here which I suppose is a good thing. I have used Mordd's items now for a week and love them, I hope that doesn't change with hb2.

 

[Tony]

i dont think that there will be a change on that...
today we will have the first release without dll support