Add "publisher" for applications

[Kreyren]

There are many games that are developed by 'one entity' and published by other.

Recommends making a publisher variable to differenciate editor from publisher + share more info about the game.

Reference https://github.com/PhoenicisOrg/scripts/pull/795/commits/ed16c2960a65cef415fbeb27732ffea5159330af#diff-c9ab1a1f58ebc7cd4cb8c6bded634778R21 Line 21

[plata]

The question is: Does anybody need this information in Phoenicis?

[Kreyren]

@plata I do xD Other then that probably not.. rather feature to be implemented once the phoenicis is in gold i would say :thinking:

[plata]

What do you want to do with it? I mean if you look at an application in Phoenicis: how does it help you to know who published it?

[Kreyren]

@plata Yes since it may help in identifying the dependencies, game quality, etc.

... It will probably look in GUI good too

but it's still minor it's up to you

[plata]

I think we can do it but then someone has to update all the apps...

[Kreyren]

@plata Well i can help it seems to be effective to add it.

[plata]

@qparis @ImperatorS79 @madoar shall we do this or not?

[qparis]

Don’t think that it is relevant for the moment

[ImperatorS79]

No opinion.

[madoar]

What do we lose by adding a publisher field?

[plata]

@madoar the question is more: what would we gain? We can also add release date of the application and a ton of other information but is it useful for anything?

[Kreyren]

@plata

We can also add release date of the application and a ton of other information but is it useful for anything?

Depending on the info provided yes it's very usefull for lots of usecases like modding, wine/script development, presentation, etc..

I woudn't include it now since it's minor and can be included with low priority. -> should be included once phoenicis's core functions are stable and usable.

[madoar]

I think it is useful. Sometimes there are multiple applications with the same name. Maybe even scripts. In such cases it is useful to have such additional information.

As far as I understand the corresponding code it should only be a matter of adding an additional field to the JS prototypes and maybe also to the Java interfaces.

[qparis]

Agree with @plata. We have a lot of priority we need to focus on now and the balance value added / developement time is not interesting enough comparing the other subjects we have. If someone wants to do it, they are free to do so. In the mean time I suggest we decide that it is not our core priority

[plata]

So we keep the issue?