Default worlds configuration vs portals

[xoft]

The portal branch has a chaos in place of a proper linkage. It has the Overworld -> Nether linkage, but doesn't have the other direction - a nether world doesn't know what overworld to use. And it creates the linkages for all overworld-type worlds, not only for the default world. The point of this entire thread is to improve on that scheme, to bring sanity.

Yes, learning the new settings will be some new experience. But there's no way around it. We can make it as easy for newcomers as possible by providing reasonable defaults (again, this proposal has a much cleaner design than the current portal branch madness) and some documentation for when someone wants to play with the settings. The general idea is, if you want to play with the settings, you need to read some docs about them.

If you don't like the format, then by all means propose an alternative one, that's why I'm posting this to a forum instead of coding away - let's find a solution that we can compromise upon.

[tigerw]

...a nether world doesn't know what overworld to use.

Nether worlds are created by a portal with the OverworldName parameter.

And it creates the linkages for all overworld-type worlds, not only for the default world.

Why wouldn't it create linkages for all worlds? Should all overworlds be required to lead to the same Nether as specified in the default world?

[xoft]

For a second overworld, the admin may want the portals not to link at all (or not be available at all, using a portal-blocking plugin), you're basically forcing every world in our multi-world paradigm to have another nether and end worlds associated with them. I don't think that's wise.

[tigerw]

Well, the branch gives you the ability to turn off portals, which will achieve the "no nether/end worlds associated" goal.

Portals that don't link to anything are portals that don't work, right?