CloudburstMC
Some designations are incorrect
As mentioned in the title, many names do not match the official information from Mojang. For example, almost all packet/type/enumeration names with "Entity" should be replaced with Actor (AddActorPacket, ActorLink, ActorFlags and so on). If you ever want to prove that a change is correct or just want to compare something in this protocol library with the official documentation, it's not only confusing for new people in the protocol scene, but also for more experienced people. Personally, I don't see a suitable reason for choosing custom names, especially not when it is argued with "better understanding". If you ever want to contribute to better understanding of a particular packet field or whatever, just write a comment in the code explaining its function and how it can affect this and that. We are blessed to have official public protocol documentation and I'm not sure how you feel about it, but in my opinion it makes no sense to not strictly adhere to the official information. Even if your own names are desired, these should be used in your own project that uses the library, e.g. a server software, and the protocol library should adhere to official names and designations. And yes, this process would mean that projects that use this library would have to update their part, but in my opinion this is a perfectly acceptable consequence if you want to stick to official information that also allows you to create better comprehensibility and compatibility with the official protocol documentation.
I think this is unnecessary. It would just shift the confusion from between the Cloudburst protocol library and the public protocol documentation to between the Cloudburst protocol library and its users, and I would prefer the former.
If we were to fully follow what Mojang does, it would be a nightmare for the maintainers of both this library and projects that rely on it.
Ironically, even Mojang isn't consistent with the "Actor" stuff. The official protocol documentation is already confusing and sometimes downright wrong, no change here would fix that.
Saw this and thought I'd chime in - personally as a user of this library, I don't support changing existing enum names just for the sake of renaming them.
However, it would be nice to have notes - e.g. in form of javadocs when names e.g. differ significantly from "official" naming - or in the case of the recent item registry packet, having a note there that the "ItemComponentPacket" should now also include the full item registry would have been nicer for users.
A good example of documentation would be gophertunnel (example for the aforementioned packet: https://github.com/Sandertv/gophertunnel/blob/master/minecraft/protocol/packet/item_registry.go ). I'm also not asking for this level of documentation - that would be an immense workload - but an occasional comment where possible would definitely be helpful (such as e.g. the deprecation warnings & since tags that are already added)
I agree. The protocol library should be like the official docs. The outdated names are not cool.
