Not feeling the love...

[Stone Rhino]

There was an official announcement (on the bottom of the one about custom zips) about the removal.

Noted, I will read up on that.

[Maxis010]

I want to reply to this, but I dont have to. I love people who think "Only thing I HAVE to do is die and pay taxes!".

You're detracting from the point. Please keep on topic.

My point was you are saying we have to make documentation, if people want to they can but they aren't being forced to

and if that isn't on topic enough for you then how about this

The devs have already sunk time in to making the launcher and the pack, the community can and will take up the slack of documentation so they can continue to focus on that, and their life's away from tekkit

[danidas]

As been said countless times the only thing the technic devs are responsible for doing is making the launcher and duck taping a series of mods together in a ready to install package. They do not make the mods or the wiki's and have nothing to do with them in any shape or from beyond hosting them. If you look at the technic/tekkit wiki's they are all put together by the community and not the devs. So expecting them to have any control or say in the content or function of any thing in the pack beyond deciding what mods to duct tape together in each pack is simply silly.

In other words the technic devs are akin to a shipping distributor that collects items that other people make and then packages them up to be distributed to the users.

[keepcalm]

Is it? Then why has the author been updating it making fixes as recently as this morning? It was probably slowing but my guess is with Tekkit Lite out and many people now using FB to try to fill some needed gaps in server capabilities it might become much more active and working.

It's far from perfect, think it's behind in some CB versioning as well but I'd hardly call it dead. It works fairly well for any plugin that doesn't require perms or have internal perms. I think Vault right now isn't working with FB which is why perms don't work. For example I can use essentials and anything I make active for everyone, everyone can use. But another plugin that uses perms will give OPs the permissions but no one else regardless of group flaggings.

ForgeBukkit IS dead.

ForgeBukkit != BukkitForge. The two are completely different.

ForgeBukkit put, well, forge on bukkit (ala MCPC), but BukkitForge does the opposite.

[Jivaii]

Bukkit on forge? Sounds alot nicer then forge on bukkit

[EarthApocalypto]

Bukkit on forge? Sounds alot nicer then forge on bukkit

Some nice bukkit on forge action goin' on here.

[Mooseman9]

http://build.aegisgaming.org/job/BukkitForge/

Looks like ForgeBukkit to me.

That right there is BukkitForge, not ForgeBukkit.

[luacs1998]

On BukkitForge:

BukkitForge uses the Bukkit API, not CraftBukkit.

Hence BukkitForge != a full CB plugin abstraction layer.

On FE documentation:

We're kinda tied up with stuff here and there, and yes, we didn't really expect anyone to help out with the wiki anyway.

[Portablejim]

BukkitForge uses the Bukkit API, not CraftBukkit.

Hence BukkitForge != a full CB plugin abstraction layer.

What are the consequences of that? Does that mean that not every plugin will be compatible, even when you are 'finished' (can't think of a better term)?

[luacs1998]

That means, in short, you can't use plugins that don't just use the Bukkit API.

That's about 700 plugins, including major ones like worldedit.

Oh, and those using guava 10 as well... there I go again.

[Portablejim]

And so that's why

Wolvereness (bukkit dev)"]There is Bukkit, and then there is CraftBukkit. Bukkit is an API, CraftBukkit is a minecraft server mod to support the Bukkit API. CraftBukkit changes without notice, from mappings to internal implementations. This will not change, and we will never support directly hooking into net.minecraft.server (NMS) or org.bukkit.craftbukkit (OBC). Very regularly when updates come, we get hundreds of reports of problems from servers that run (bad) plugins that compile against OBC or NMS. Thing is, we need NMS and OBC to be as versatile as possible because we do not control the vanilla jar that we are modding. When vanilla gets refactored, we have to redesign OBC to still fit the API. The API on the other hand is a set of specifications. We maintain those specifications, as could anyone else. Maintaining those specifications, is as I just said, part of what makes NMS and OBC deprecated and volatile.

Forge refuses to work with the same limitations that we have; they want more. They want us to bend over backwards to support both OBC and NMS changes.

Why don't they look at this a different way? They don't need to use our OBC or NMS; they could just implement the Bukkit API over their own internals. Replacing our implementation, expecting us to bend over backwards, is never going to work. As it is, they are attempting to put forth a fraction of our effort in getting things working, with the rest falling on our shoulders.

is so annoying? Because without the 'OBC' or 'NMS' of Craftbukkit a lot of mods won't work?

[luacs1998]

And so that's why

is so annoying? Because without the 'OBC' or 'NMS' of Craftbukkit a lot of mods won't work?

Unfortunately, yes.

Bukkit ones, that is.

[Stone Rhino]

Luacs1998, My apologies for being too frank about the wiki thing. Its just I'm stuck in the middle of loosing my funding for the servers that I run, and the frustration of the people that want them running. A whole new permission system to be configured through a web interface for my customers was the last thing I was looking forward to.

[keepcalm]

And so that's why

is so annoying? Because without the 'OBC' or 'NMS' of Craftbukkit a lot of mods won't work?

Once the rest of BukkitForge is stable, I will begin looking into workarounds for this.

[luacs1998]

Once the rest of BukkitForge is stable, I will begin looking into workarounds for this.

Trust me,don't bother. That is unless you want 600 hours of porting bukkit to forge mappings. Source - cpw. You're going too much in forgebukkit territory here bro.