Skip to content

UMAPINFO cross compatibility investigation #11

@elf-alchemist

Description

@elf-alchemist

The inclusion of port-exclusive *MAPINFO type lumps, in addition to UMAPINFO, is inadmissible. Any and all situations in which an actively maintained port (such as GZDoom, for example) requires the addition of it's own *MAPINFO type (ZMAPINFO, for example) are to be considered bugs and a limitation of the UMAPINFO, requiring consideration in later revisions.

UMAPINFO implies defaulting/falling-back to vanilla hardcoded values, any difference in such behavior across ports (forcing the inclusion of every map property) is a bug -- the same UMAPINFO lump should work the same, no matter what, across each and every UMAP-compliant port.

The QoL patch DW thread is a prime example of the unnecessary extra work put into duplicated lump types and possible excessive property definitions.

Points to investigate:

  • fallback values, how does each active UMAPINFO port default to vanilla values, on each and every slot?
  • is each parser similarly behaved? does it give warnings, fatal errors, or remains silent upon encountering an unknown keyword?
  • which areas are demo-breaking or not? which parts can be safely changed, or have to stay the same as current demo-accurate ports, i.e. Woof, DSDA, Eternity?

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions