ITEMS_MODULE: Optional support for the Central Items Database

[Savagedlight]

These two commits introduce optional support for the CIDB, using version 1.1 of the specification.
ITEMS_MODULE will continue using the local database by default, but the user may choose to use the CIDB by changing the items_database setting.

[bigwheels16]

thanks

[bigwheels16]

hey, umm, I don't see any usage for the cidb. I don't mind adding it but if no one is going to use it I can't really justify that.

[zewm]

I run three bots and all of them use CIDB. It has a solid layout and up-to-date information. I really like it on my bots and it seems to be the standard on most bots I use in game (iraid/HC/Helpbot). It would be a welcomed addition.

[clearminds]

bigwheels: why remove a merged in ready function that works and which is a welcome addition?

[bigwheels16]

zewm, it sounds like you already use another bot that has cidb support, which is awesome--use the bot that works best for you for sure. but then what i do with budabot won't affect you either way so i guess i am not sure why it matter to you?

[zewm]

bigwheels16, The three bots I run all use BudaBot. So, yea it kind of will affect me. I like BudaBot and I've been using it for several years now, I would hate to have to look into using a different bot at this point. BudaBot has been great and is real easy to use. But alas I am but a simple end user :<

[bigwheels16]

zewm, sorry i misunderstood. I assumed you were using other bots. anyway, can u make a post on budabot forums with your concerns? if we have the discussion here not many people will see it. there is an ITEMS_MODULE thread you can respond to, or make your own thread. either is fine.

[clearminds]

Bigwheels16: you started the discussion here, 1 day ago.

[pgodschalk]

I am in favour of removing CIDB functionality because

a) The maintainers have a very poor history actually maintaining things
b) You have no control over the CIDB server; sending each request to a third party is a privacy issue.

[Savagedlight]

In reply to Argure (Patrick Godschalk):

a) I'd like to see some documentation on how I have a poor history of maintaining things.

b) This is theoretically correct. Which is one of the reasons I decided to leave the offline database as default, and add the CIDB as an option people would have to actively choose to use.

[nvx]

I'd argue that items requests are a fairly tiny privacy issue, especially being that only the bot could be identified (and even then it's not like you've got the name of the bot, you'd only have an IP address - so good luck even identifying which faction the bot is used by, let alone org or raidbot specifically), not the player.

Removing optional functionality seems like a massive step in the wrong direction, especially considering the rather weak arguments for removing it.

[bigwheels16]

There are lots of opinions in this thread. But seeing that zewm is the only person who seems to be using Budabot, his (or hers) is the only opinion I care about. Unfortunately, I cannot include this feature based on his usage alone.

I will not be including CIDB functionality for the ITEMS_MODULE in the 3.2_GA release due to low usage and interest for that functionality. For people who want the CIDB functionality, we encourage them to add it. To that end, I have invited Savadedlight to include her version of the ITEMS_MODULE with the CIDB functionality on the Budabot forums so that if there is anyone who wants it, they can easily add it. If I am wrong, and there is a lot of interest for this, I will consider if for the next release.

[bigwheels16]

@Savagedlight I am going to add CIDB support, and I'm going to make it the default items database for the next release, unless you have objections to that.