In reaction on the post by Orstio;
No Bridge for Joomla 1.5 (http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?topic=137121.0)
This is a SAD SAD situation, certainly since all SMF / Joomla users will be in a position where decisions have to be made, resulting in an or - or solution.
Personally I just made the step to leave PHPBB behind, because the integration between Joomla and PHPBB are very poor (bad). (this decision was made some months ago, and now we just made the step, this announcement is a slap in the face for me :'( )
SMF has a lot to offer, amongst many great features, the joomla bridge is one of them!
Is it possible to share your experience thus far, so we can pick this up and try to find a solution anyway?
Joomla 1.5 should be a CMS which gives handles for usermanagement... loosing SMF is a step back.
I'd like to give it a go, since loosing SMF isn't on my schedule since I've expierenced SMF!
Please let us know where the problem exactly lies, so we can try to find the solution, regards GT
(edit: i saw the url wasn't working)
Quote from: GTWillemsen on January 02, 2007, 06:56:19 AM
Personally I just made the step to leave PHPBB behind, because the integration between Joomla and PHPBB are very poor (bad). (this decision was made some months ago, and now we just made the step, this announcement is a slap in the face for me :'( )
Same here.
What would be the best solution when the joomla/smf combo becomes obsolete, change back to mambo?
Personally I do not want to switch again, instead I want first want to try to realize it anyway.
As I saw this developing I went ahead and unwrapped my SMF and removed the bridge. My main use on my site is simple calenders for my classes and some content. I find SMF to be the best forum so I wanted to keep it.
I simply made my joomla site have a login page for me and other admins and the rest is all guest user. That way My SMF forum is still kickass.
A huge Thank you to Kindred, Ortisio and all the other people who helped me with the bridge over the years!
I feel the pain... now I need to decide whether I should make my smf install a stand alone or hack the core when Joomla 1.5 is out... :'( :'(
personally, I am planning to move back to Mambo...
mambo 4.6.1 is very nice and the intergration hooks are fairly amazing.
I suspect that there is more to this than meets the eye.
Probably some personal rift between SMF people and Joomla people rather than any technical difficulty as its only PHP code afterall, not BRAIN SURGERY. :(
I dont even get the part where he sez "a proper bridge" does not modify core files..what does that mean anyway????
who cares what it's called, as long as it works? The Ortiso bridge modifies the code internally, by performing manipulations on the internal string buffer.
The JoomlaHacks bridge well...as the name implies, hacks away at the code like Cortez hacking trough the rainforest. But they both work, and to the user, the result is more or less seamless.
This is all a bit premature anyway. I wouldnt worry too much.
Running SMF unbridged is probably best anyway, we dont need to 'bridge it' to 'wrap it' which is what people are really trying to do anyway.
The market is gonna be big enough that SOMEBODY is gonna provide a solution. :D
Quote from: shirster on January 02, 2007, 04:23:29 PM
I feel the pain... now I need to decide whether I should make my smf install a stand alone or hack the core when Joomla 1.5 is out... :'( :'(
Altering core files doesn't sound like a good idea since it will only work until the next update of either joomla or smf.
Quote from: elfishtroll on January 02, 2007, 04:45:50 PM
Running SMF unbridged is probably best anyway, we dont need to 'bridge it' to 'wrap it' which is what people are really trying to do anyway.
That depends on whether you use the joomla login functions.
I am also using the comment component and a shout box on my site and I don't want to enable random guests to use those. Therefore I need some kind of bridge between my CMS and my forum because otherwise users would have to register twice.
Quote from: Kindred on January 02, 2007, 04:42:11 PM
personally, I am planning to move back to Mambo...
mambo 4.6.1 is very nice and the intergration hooks are fairly amazing.
Maybe that's the best solution afterall.
Elfishtroll...
You are distinctly incorrect on almost all counts.
1- there is no rift between sfma dn joomla people. Joomla has decided to move in a coding direction that does not work with the way SMF works. Exactly as orstio described.
2- A proper bridge does not modify any source files, again, exactly as Orstio said. As good as the Joomlahacks integration might be, it is not a proper bridge and, since it does modify both SMF and Joomla source files, upgrading either system can be an issue... as can some interactions between other smf mods or joomla components.
Orstio's bridge is a bridge... it works with the basic source codes of both systems and links the two together through its own functions, without modifying any of the actual code.
3- It's not premature. The Joomla Dev team has released the betas of 1.5. The SMF bridge does not work with Joomla 1.5. period.
4- Running SMF in the joomla "wrapper" component is a sure way to disaster. SMF does not like to be run in an iframe and there are probable session issues with doing so. In addition, MOST people actually use the bridge to link the userlists and permissions of SMF and Joomla together. The wrapping is a nice benefit as well, but the shared users and single login is definitely the most important feature.... Just like the Gallery2 bridge does.
5- I (and most others) don't want to run unbridged or unwrapped...
And so... although I have absolutely no issues with the Joomla team, and I like Joomla, I will be switching my sites to Mambo when the mambo bridge reaches release status. Because the MAIN purpose of my site is the forum and I refuse to use anything other than SMF.
Problem with Mambo is the lack of add-ons, most developers are supporting Joomla only, if Mambo related questions are posted on developers forum you'll be ignored or you'll get "We support Joomla" answer.
I won't be switching to Mambo, I only hope Orstio or Joomla core team are able to find a solution otherwise I'll miss this message board (I don't mean SMF I won't be switching SMF for anything).
QuoteAltering core files doesn't sound like a good idea since it will only work until the next update of either joomla or smf.
All bridges are potentially affected when a new version of SMF or Joomla comes out - it all depends on what those changes are.
We've all seen the bridge (either types) get updated in response to changes in Joomla or SMF (depending on the scope of those changes)
Wrapping the bridge in an Iframe (raw) does make it harder to implicitly bookmark your current location in the forum, but it's nothing a little Javascript and php cant solve!
The Orsito bridge or the Joomlahacks bridge weren't perfect initially either! Indeed, I was hacked due to a vulnerability in the Oristo bridge :( But in time, they were all fixed and now work pretty much perfectly!
I dont see how the only people to put a man on the moon cant connect two PHP apps together. It all seems ludicrous and somewhat peevish to me.
As far as 'modifying source files', SMF mods do that ALL the time via the package manager! why is that set up as some kind of sacred cow or mystical line in the sand we dare not cross?
All we need for SMF is a J1.5 integration mod for the SMF side, and maybe some custom modifications for the Joomla side. For those who are concerned about future changes in J1.5 invalidating the new bridge, we do the same as we now do for SMF. Roll back our mods, apply the update and then reapply the mods.
On a related note, I feel SMF should have a director of Public Relations or some kind of functional organ to issue press releases or official SMF statements. I'm not saying this unkindly, its just that the announcement (no bridge support) could have been handled much differently.
If original announcement simply said:
Quote
As a matter of programming resources, SMF does not currently have any to spare regarding the new version of Joomla. The internal code of the new Joomla is more akin to a completely new CMS than an incremental difference compared to the old versions of Joomla and Mambo.
The SSI.php functions and the resources of the Online Manual and API reference will still be available to those who wish to add their own bridging functions.
Since the Mambo code base (now currently very similar to the joomla code base) will not change appreciably in the near future, we will be able to continue to support Mambo as it progresses.
That would be it. Done.
No editorial comments as to what constitutes a 'proper bridge' or other "but I work on bridges, not modifications of CMS's."
WT??
Just a simple statement of intent as it relates to resources.
The statement from Orsito justs seems petulant and peevish to me, it doesnt 'speak' well at all.
I was very disappointed reading it, no so much for the result (no future bridge) but the way it was written.
and yet, if the statement had been made the way you say, there would ahve been all sorts of people saying 'awwwww, why not'. Orstio's comment addressed the issue, was straightforward and to the point and it also explained WHY he would not be working on a j1.5 bridge any further. Sorry if it was not "PC" or "corp-speak" enough for you.
Remember, everyone here at SMF is a volunteer.
Wrapping the foroum in an iframe has more issues than just bookmarks.
And the reason j1.5 is not going to be supported is because the Joomla team has changed the very way that Joomla handles things. Without a fairly major re-write to the way SMF handles things, the systems won't bridge. (remember, any changes to the joomla side of things would have to be made such that everyone else's components, designed for the new way that j! is going to work, won't break either... It's more than a little mod-package for the smf side of things, it would require a change to the very way that smf works.
Thanks for your sentiments here, Elfishtroll. Believe it or not, they are appreciated.
QuoteAs far as 'modifying source files', SMF mods do that ALL the time via the package manager! why is that set up as some kind of sacred cow or mystical line in the sand we dare not cross?
That has to do with history. It's important to learn from the past.
There was an integration created for Mambo 4.5.0 before I ever started on the bridge. You can read about it here:
http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?topic=6344.0
That integration modified both Mambo and SMF, and development cycles of both softwares were significantly shorter at that time. SMF 1.0 was still in beta at the time (SMF 1.0 beta 3, IIRC), and Mambo 4.5.0 was pre-ACL. Upgrading to either Mambo 4.5.1 or SMF 1.0 RC1 broke the integration, and the source modifications did not work with either new version.
The developer of that software seemed to disappear around that time, so I started working on an integration of my own. I contacted the lead dev here ([Unknown] at that time), to let him know about my intentions, and the "ideal" system I envisioned.
I already knew that Coppermine had a built-in series of bridges -- integrations that required no modification to the Coppermine source code, and that seemed the right way to go.
If you've followed the development of the bridge over the years, you'd know that it has made fewer and smaller changes to SMF and Mambo/Joomla as it progressed. Now, it's down to a small change (one line) to the Joomla template if you happen to be running SMF and Joomla in separate databases.
So, I hope that explains at least why I feel it paramount that no changes be made to core files. I've seen the mess that makes, and so it's something that I choose not to do.
QuoteOn a related note, I feel SMF should have a director of Public Relations or some kind of functional organ to issue press releases or official SMF statements. I'm not saying this unkindly, its just that the announcement (no bridge support) could have been handled much differently.
If original announcement simply said:
Insert Quote
As a matter of programming resources, SMF does not currently have any to spare regarding the new version of Joomla. The internal code of the new Joomla is more akin to a completely new CMS than an incremental difference compared to the old versions of Joomla and Mambo.
The SSI.php functions and the resources of the Online Manual and API reference will still be available to those who wish to add their own bridging functions.
Since the Mambo code base (now currently very similar to the joomla code base) will not change appreciably in the near future, we will be able to continue to support Mambo as it progresses.
While that sounds good, a lot of it is untrue.
I could rephrase your version to state the truth, and I suppose I could have mentioned more than Mambo, in retrospect, but at the time I was thinking that Joomla users would be most familiar with that CMS, and I wanted to make sure that those already using Mambo would be certain that development for it would continue.
QuoteThe internal code of the new Joomla is more akin to a completely new CMS than an incremental difference compared to the old versions of Joomla and Mambo. The new structure of Joomla, and the structure of SMF, will not integrate without significant modifications to the core of one or both of the softwares, which is a situation we do not wish to pursue.
The SSI.php functions and the resources of the Online Manual and API reference will still be available to those who wish to add their own bridging functions.
Since the Mambo code base has also changed appreciably, but in such a way as to make integration easier, we will be able to continue to support Mambo as it progresses. Support and development for other CMS software will continue as well, including Xoops, e107, and iGamingCMS. We look forward to adding more CMS bridges in the future.
In the end all people want is a working solution.
When I first read the "No Bridge" post it rubbed me the wrong way. I guess the big rub was the "mambo" statement - it almost sounded like a dis to Joomla. >:(
I have used both "bridges" available for Joomla and I am currently using the other "hack". Yes it has issues but it works fine once you work out the problems.
I will wait and see how 1.5 changes as it gets closer to release as I am sure someone will have a working solution for Joomla 1.5 and our favorite forum software SMF. I won't be afraid to roll up the sleeves and do some coding to make it work. :)
I have to be perfectly honest that I'm beginning, reluctantly, to wonder about either direction. I'm not keen on Mambo anymore because of the fact that the entire dev team pretty much left and there's been little if any progress that I'm happy or keen with. I much prefer Joomla and the progress the team is on... but I do have to wonder if the move from 1.0 to 1.5 and later 2.0 is going to be an endless sea of breakages as they make major milestone revisions to get to adding the template system, better SEF out of the box, better multi-national language support, and then work towards a more robust and feature-rich user system. I do *FULLY* understand the needs the Joomla team has noted need to be addressed, maybe similar needs to what SMF will need to address as well, but I almost feel like we could've rode out 1.x 'til 2.0 and made it all in one big swing, rather than make monumental changes multiple times that have greater potential to break bridges and other modules and components multiple times. Just keep 1.x working solidly. It might not be the leader forever, might not even be to some now... but if they devoted their energies to 2.0 to get everything progressed along... maybe once there was confidence that this is Joomla at 2.0, this is the new API framework, have at integrating SMF via a bridge... there'd be more receptiveness towards it rather than the skepticism that major changes are going to leave the efforts for naught too much, too often.
What I'd love to see is rather than both sides to continue to reinvent the wheel in their own ways, for the 2 sides to possibly come together and find a way to make SMF extend Joomla and Joomla to extend SMF when combined (but worth work very well independantly on their own); rather than exist solely as 2 separate apps. that require funky bridges and patches. It should be a lot easier than this and shouldn't require multiple different people to create different workarounds to the same end goal as we've had with Orstio's and Joomlahack's efforts. That isn't to say that the 2 should be birthed together entirely... but it'd be nice if via one or the other, the bridge could be rolled in as an option on install, or that perhaps a download of Joomla could come with an SMF built in and that certain pieces between the 2 apps. could be agreed upon as a no man's land other than to fix any security issues, and hopefully do so without breaking anything.
I do realize some SMF people might not want to use Joomla and instead choose <CMS here>, if they even need a CMS... and some Joomla people might not want to use SMF instead of <forum board here> if they even use a forum, but... I think if both applications, judging by the past comraderie, could work out a way to make SMF and Joomla remain friendly to one another, or perhaps even get developers from Drupal and other CMS'es and even other boards to standardize some things via some form of global consortium... perhaps going forward it wouldn't have all of the hoop-jumping, frustrations, and reinventing the wheel to get where everyone seemingly truly wants to go.
I do have to admit that Joomla isn't the end-all, be-all, answer to my needs in entirety. But the way things are looking right now, without a suitable bridge or CMS... SMF might not be for my needs either. Much as I currently hate our current PHP Nuke situation for being the flaming pile of poop it is IMHO, there's some features and things that Nuke provides for us that I can't get with any other CMS once you work through all of the bugs to get it working. While I'd love to get away from all of the bugs and junkiness and slowness that is Nuke... giving up a half dozen features within the CMS'es that remain as options, or getting a CMS where I have to literally build onto the house of cards myself (as I feel Drupal is), or having a big huge monolithic app. that's quite awesome for it's power but a true nightmare to administrate (ala Xaraya), isn't truly the ideal. I'm not a coder, I didn't turn to Joomla and SMF as an option with the intents of building onto it, I just wish to add onto an existing solution to get where I'd like our site to eventually be with a killer board and a nicely done, intuitive, and powerful CMS. Right now, if this is how it's going to be... I'm not sure if I can consider this anything but a dead end for my future development solutions. I love SMF, love Joomla, wish for Joomla to have more features obviously, but feel that SMF is already lightyears ahead of where we are (PHPbb in Nuke) today. I was hoping that 1.5 of Joomla would cater more towards that to fill in the rest of the gaps... but without SMF, both sides are crumbling for my wants and needs. :(
All having opinions, but no1 seems 2b against a working solution.
(mostly @Orstio and colleague developers) are you willing to post/publish, or is there already somewhere / somehow we (the rest of us) can get a peak into the problems and or the progress thusfar, in the hope some1 finds unseen solutions or an other way of approach, which migth work.
It seems to me it's better not to reinvent the wheel (already working and/or not working code), but to progress on the existing experience and knowledge.
I really appreciate the already spent energy and given creativity, and totally understand teh made descissions. But I'd even like more to try and sweat some and spent some time trying to evolve into a working solution then sit back and give up on either Joomla or SMF.
Looking for an other solution can always be done, but I hope it's not necessary.
Orsito, Thanks for your well reasoned and thought out reply. I was initially suspicious when I read your initial message/post (about working in vain with the Joomla people for months and not being able to come to a solution re: bridging J1.5 and SMF)
Knowing some of the history with Joomla (the hissy fit split with Mambo, current internal squabbles within the Joomla community itself and difficulties maintaining development focus on J1.5 while keeping up with/maintaining old "legacy Joomla" ) I suspected (incorrectly as it apparently turns out) that somebody there had royally pissed you off into throwing up (in?) the towel.
Having taken some time to do a quick look through of the code, (you may say I should have before posting-but I refuse to hear that so dont even say it! :P) it is clear that supporting J1.5 falls more under NEW CODE DEVELOPMENT FOR A NEW CMS rather than "ongoing" support. Still, while I dont feel the issues are necessarily insurmountable, it does evolve though into a RESOURCES issue and you are the best at judging how much time YOU will have to breastfeed and wean this new J1.5 baby :)
Your professional reputation being important, it is always important to manage your commitments: A project not taken on earns far less ire than a half-assed poorly managed one. Framed in that context, no one (though disappointed) could fault you for framing it as a time management issue rather than a "worked for months with these damned joomla guys and all I got to show for it was this stupid T-Shirt!" type post! :D
Still where do we go from here?
Would it be possible to GPL your efforts with the J people to this point so that others may try taking up the ball?
QuoteKnowing some of the history with Joomla (the hissy fit split with Mambo, current internal squabbles within the Joomla community itself and difficulties maintaining development focus on J1.5 while keeping up with/maintaining old "legacy Joomla" ) I suspected (incorrectly as it apparently turns out) that somebody there had royally pissed you off into throwing up (in?) the towel.
I would have been very disappointed in myself had that been the case. While I would have certainly appreciated the Joomla devs being more responsive when I first asked for help, it was not a deciding factor. Had they helped, I would probably have come to the conclusion sooner (as I did with PostNuke, where the devs were quite helpful), but that time frame is neither here nor there when the outcome is the same.
No one is more saddened than I am about the fact that there are now thousands of sites that will need to look for a different solution after their Joomla 1.0.x sites are no longer supported by the Joomla team. I know that I'm letting down a lot of people with that announcement, and frankly, that does bother me. But, I think you said it best:
QuoteA project not taken on earns far less ire than a half-assed poorly managed one.
I'd rather produce something I know will work to a bare minimum of my own satisfaction. If that means dropping one CMS out of the arsenal I work on, then so be it.
QuoteFramed in that context, no one (though disappointed) could fault you for framing it as a time management issue rather than a "worked for months with these damned joomla guys and all I got to show for it was this stupid T-Shirt!" type post!
Time management is not the issue, though. I've had plenty of time to work with other CMS software, so saying that I don't have time for Joomla would be outright lying, as far as I'm concerned.
QuoteWould it be possible to GPL your efforts with the J people to this point so that others may try taking up the ball?
What I will do (perhaps immediately after I finish the TimberwolfCMS bridge) is document the usage of the SMF integration hooks in the bridges. While there is documentation in the SMF Online Manual, it is still very open-ended about their usage. The technique for their usage is not difficult to code, but it is difficult to understand at first, and not always easy to explain. Now that I have functional coding examples, that should make a tutorial quite a bit easier, and allow for me to give specific details on the integration functions.
I'd say, given the fact that Joomla requires the output be returned to Joomla, SSI is probably going to be the most successful approach to start with. That is the technique used in the 2.2 version of the bridge for Mambo, which is GPL, and may still be available at MamboXchange. This version has a few issues, however, including problems with multiple SMF theme usage, no wrap on admin login or error pages (still within the Joomla framework, but not wrapped in the Joomla template), some upgrade issues from SMF (The bridge would need to be heavily modified for each and every upgrade to SMF), and the manual hacking of the bridge for SMF mods to work. I would say that despite those annoyances, this would be the best technique in which to work, because it would still all stay within the Joomla framework.
This is very sad.
I'd hope to see a future for this bridge on Joomla but that future seems bleak now.
I really like Joomla and SMF but It seems that I will have to make a very hard decision. And I really don't want to.
IT seems when the time comes, its going to be either Mambo 4.6 or something else. Because I will be keeping SMF. Sorry for them.
Ironic that Joomla forums are SMF - surely they must be aware of this issue for many users...
I think they are going to be a dictator :-X
I'm saddened to read a lot of this thread, there is a lot of negativity which is based on false assumptions and is not redressed by the people who are moving their development focus elsewhere.
Orstio, whatever your reasoning it is your decision to make. I, for one, applaud the amount of [continuing] effort you (and your colleagues) have spent on prjoects such as this.
With that in mind tho', the people who have contributed to this thread and voiced their concerns about having no option whatsoever if they want to develop their web sites with Joomla and SMF. The fact is that your's is not the only "bridge" available at the present time; I use Joomlahacks' and it works for me (your's, btw, just wouldn't work for me, but I see that as just the way it is).
Wolverine has [also] commented on his development for Joomla 1.5 and he's said he's said "he's not working on it" BUT he's put this into context by saying that since Joomla 1.5 is still very much beta there is no reason to get in a panic about the bridge at this moment in time - 1.5-stable is still a little way off yet ;)
It is obvious that there are a lot of extremely grateful and loyal supporters for Orstio's bridge, and that has to be recognised and hugely applauded but, I'd suggest, that anyone suggesting that there will be no way of using SMF with Joomla 1.5 in a "bridged" mode is mistaken. If I had money I'd put a wager on it! ;)
I think we also need to realize that it is not only a case of SMF abandoning Joomla, but Joomla abandoning Joomla as well. Why even CALL the new product Joomla?
well, it allows them to build on the Name Recognition the old product has, but architecturally, the new J1.5 is a substantially different product, I'd say probably as different as PostNuke is from say Joomla1.01x
With the clarification from Ortiso it seems (and correct me) that the fundamental problem seems to be a Philosophical one rather than a Technical one.
Basically, he objects (and on sound grounds) the idea of as a rule heavily modifying the source code of Joomla or SMF code to effect the integration. While there are a lot of caveats to that approach, it is workable. Life (and coding) is nothing but tradeoffs all the same.
What we may end up doing is doing a bridge for the bridge lol.
I'm encouraged by the fact that initial support for community builder seemed to not be forthcoming either, but time heals code as well as all wounds :P.
Joomla 1.5 is so different from 1.01x that if you have a lot of extensions/components and mods, SMF compatibility will only be one of your problems. Since Mambo is structurally identical to Joomla 1.01x then it defacto becomes the ongoing line for Joomla going forward in my book.
Whether the underlying software is called Mambo or Joomla or DickCheney'sPimpledAss.php means nothing to me. I just want a working code to support my site. :D
It's not so much an abandoning but a redefining of Joomla, akin to NT 4->Windows 2000, or 2000 -> XP, or XP -> Vista; as there was a lot of code changes (although a ton of effort to insure compatibilities with legacy, even at penalty to the system itself in some ways) or maybe more comparatively... Mac OS 7-9 -> OS X where there was some broken compatibilities', even when using Classic. There's a lot of outstanding issues that Joomla's developers saw within the old codebase that warranted a complete ground-up rewrite in many ways. I fully understand and respect that decision as there's a lot of things Joomla should be capable of that it's not, many of which are very helpful moving forward. It's in no small part that I eagerly anticipated the move to 1.5->2.0, esp. 2.0 with it's much greater support for ACL. They've done a lot to retain compatibility with a lot of old features and themes via 'legacy mode' but, the big deal-breaker for me right now is the SMF situation. I love this board, and while I like some alternatives (i.e. PunBB which is very clean, light, and easier to change the look of or tweak IMHO), I just look at the featureset of SMF and find it more along the lines of what I want.
I'm an admin on an online racing gaming site and we need both a good CMS (something we don't have now, ours is junk IMHO) as well as a board (meh). Our current situation with Nuke/PHPbb has been enough to cause me to research... I love SMF, it runs rings around PHPbb in my opinion (not a terrible solution but not as robust or feature-rich as SMF), but Joomla has it's significant pluses and a handful of negatives. Going forward... I was eagerly anticipating 1.5 and more probably, 2.0, for the features both are apt to bring to go toe to toe with our Nuke install and ultimately surpass, while offering all of that which Nuke fails to. The problem is... without integration with SMF or an SMF-like board, Joomla even at 1.5-2.0 is a major shortcoming for us.
The problem is... I like Orstio's approach to a bridge vs. the alternative approach which Orstio rightfully could call an 'integration' as it's actually sort of gluing itself into the inner workings of each app. There is a very big difference, especially since said integration isn't a Joomla-rolled and self-sustaining piece. If it were... going forward... Orstio's bridge would bear little fruit and there'd be no qualms really as we'd all likely use Joomla's home-grown solution. Yet in the reality, in comparing the bridges and so-called bridges... Orstio's is the real deal, and the alternative is an integration. That is... it modifies files on both sides in ways that an upgrade to the site or board could break. With security concerns creeping up in PHP-installs, it's imperative that you be able to update your site and board components without breakages and without chasing your tail to debug and fix things after the upgrade. A bridge, bridges the 2 codebases without potential for a breakage... as long as the developers on both sides stick to their plans or keep either side primed ahead of time. The bulk of the code could radically change, as long as the hooks stay the same. That option seemingly is deprecated in Joomla 1.5 going forward, and without it... who knows what we'll have other than to hack it back in every single time there's a point release from 1.5?
I'm going to keep it in mind to see what comes of the integrations for SMF, but I do have to admit I'm a bit concerned about going that pathway now, as I have gut feelings 2.0 will do even more to cause problems with this. I'd hate to follow a path and dead-end and have to reshift again. I do love Joomla as a CMS though (very polished and slick for what capabilities it does possess), although after looking through things... I've noticed Orstio has alpha support for e107. I might have to follow this one more closely as I do have to admit to liking e107 even if it doesn't have quite the following or support base in terms of add-ons as Joomla or Mambo. With that said, out of the box... e107 is a bit easier to setup IMHO, and it performs favorably with comparison to the current Joomla/Mambo platform, if not even providing exactly what we need out of the box in some manners. Either that or I'll have to keep an eye on the Ruby-based CMS'es like Eribium to see where it goes (very, very, very, very, very green). Eribium + Aireo (for S3) alone could leapfrog anything we've got in a heartbeat, with the only looming question is making Eribium talk with SMF or a comparable Ruby-board (none exist that I know of); or whether or not running Ruby and PHP on a server in combination could cause it's own concerns.
Near-term... I'm going to have to pull the trigger sometime and come up with something. Watching the sheer # of crashes and bugs that are part of our site is downright aggravating, not to mention the bandwidth that Nuke sucks up for the lack of features it provides that we want. There's a lot Nuke has over everybody, but there's a lot of Nuke that brings it so far down that even in the conundrum of finding an alternative... it's almost a blessing to give up some features and capabilities for the gains of countless others, along with greater stability, performance, and security.
A petition was set up...Followed by mocks from the Joomla Hacks team and a mod claiming that J!1.5 is flexible.
http://forum.joomla.org/index.php/topic,127643.msg629260.html#msg629260
Quote from: old blue on January 04, 2007, 12:38:37 AM
Ironic that Joomla forums are SMF - surely they must be aware of this issue for many users...
We run SMF? Dang.. I knew I missed something ;)
Seriously though, SMF is the best forum there is, we love it! Remember the days when we ran vBulletin, (when we were called Mambo) boy, I'm glad that is over. There is no way we'd be able to sustain the traffic and posts that we can now handle with SMF.
Thanks to all the SMF devs who bring us such a good system. Joomla 1.5 is going to be the SMF of the CMS world. Bring it on 8)
/me goes back to tend one of the worlds top 30 SMF boards.
Quote from: Omega X on January 04, 2007, 11:27:04 PM
.. and a mod claiming that J!1.5 is flexible.
Thats me 8) and it is.
Quote from: Omega X on January 04, 2007, 11:27:04 PM
A petition was set up...Followed by mocks from the Joomla Hacks team and a mod claiming that J!1.5 is flexible.
http://forum.joomla.org/index.php/topic,127643.msg629260.html#msg629260
There is no team, just lil ole me. And I felt mocked by the bold red hack comment. Should have just said that instead. I'm not sure where you get off saying you would expect that of me, considering we have never spoken and I respond to such comments next to never. My integration is different, nuff said.
Hi Wolverine,
Out of curiosity what happened to Cowboy, is he still around, are you the same guy?
About this, there's also a discussion going on at Joomla! Forums:
http://forum.joomla.org/index.php/topic,85231.msg621349.html#msg621349
Quote from: joomla on January 04, 2007, 11:44:14 PM
Quote from: old blue on January 04, 2007, 12:38:37 AM
Ironic that Joomla forums are SMF - surely they must be aware of this issue for many users...
We run SMF? Dang.. I knew I missed something ;)
Seriously though, SMF is the best forum there is, we love it! Remember the days when we ran vBulletin, (when we were called Mambo) boy, I'm glad that is over. There is no way we'd be able to sustain the traffic and posts that we can now handle with SMF.
Thanks to all the SMF devs who bring us such a good system. Joomla 1.5 is going to be the SMF of the CMS world. Bring it on 8)
/me goes back to tend one of the worlds top 30 SMF boards.
?? With all due respect (which really means, none at all :P) SMF and Vbulletin are not yet in the same class - that remark is just irrelevant pandering IMHO, gimme a break.
Vbulletin IS better, only (for me at least) not $160 better +30/year
On topic, what I have seen is that the break with Joomla and SMF (1.5 integration) is due to a paradigm shift, not so much a technical issue.
(we may save the debate on whether a paradigm shift IS a technical issue for another thread!)
I'm surprised reading the forum posts on joomla.org how stupid and rude some of them are, "Stupid users".."why cant they just simply sign on both times" and all kinds of crap.
The problem is that the Orsito bridge is designed from the ground up with the presumption that a certain behavior is going to be valid. The ability to OWN the output buffer and the code execution context is the real sticking point here.
It's like doing code then being told at the last minute you cant use the assumptions of REGISTER GLOBALS (pain in the azz) F_URL open (major pain) or INCLUDE/REQUIRE (aargh!)
But, if you are coding from scratch with those realities already known, then it is just an 'operating environment' you are getting into, so no big deal,really.
Reading the full threads over at the joomla site, I am disappointed with a LOT of the crappitude there :(
Quote..Well they have to login everytime anyway! Your not saving them anything really.
On a shared machine what is to stop them from just going to a direct link of the forum and getting logged in and be able to post as the last user who logged into the site?
Bridges REDUCE security on shared machines because your actually bypassing a security check with them!
In these enviornments you should have to login twice to ensure you are who you are!
The quote speaks for itself ...reading through the Joomla posts from the Joomla people, I can see plainly that Ortiso is being too kind in describing his attempts at dealing with those guys.
Yeah, I didnt mention who the quote is from: I figured he would be embarrassed enough!
(Where is Al Gore when you need him? This GLOBAL WARMING is getting out of hand! :P)
Am I classed as a Joomla person? I hope so... :P
ahh people.. breath in, breath out... this will go down in history as the great 'Joomla 1.5-smf storm in a tea cup'. ;) If Orstio will not code a bridge, someone else will.
Re: SMF vs vBulletin, perhaps I need to clarify, for us, Joomla, we prefer and I personally recommend SMF over vBulletin. It's server/ friendly nature makes it essential to an active community like ours. vBulletin would be killing our servers now, period.
:) I agree with that last comment. The market will demand that there is a functional bridge between joomla 1.5 and SMF and the market always gets what it wants.
What has surprised me (a little bit, not too much, being around for two years with Joomla/Mambo) is the amount of inflammatory rhetoric on the Joomla side much of it flat out wrong - and just stupid! The arguments based on (If they dont like it, fk 'em! and "users are dumb" - which personally I hate MORE THAN YOU CAN POSSIBLY BELIEVE -I dont believe there is anything like 'dumb users' only dumb code and coders-but THAT is a topic for another thread.)
What struck me (from both sides really, but more on the Joomla side) is how RELIGIOUS the debate has gotten, an almost jihadist adherence to a particular SIDE not to logic - the "other side" is "wrong" not based on anything said or done, but because they "are the other side".
I'm curious "joomla" why that name? do you speak for joomla* or have you just co opted that login (kinda like cyber squatting, w/o the cyber or the squatting :P)
*I, on the other hand, am somewhat 'elfish' i.e. diminutive in stature and more often than not, a bit of a troll. (so there!)
Quote from: Aravot on January 05, 2007, 01:33:06 AM
Hi Wolverine,
Out of curiosity what happened to Cowboy, is he still around, are you the same guy?
Cowboy is around but more or less just runs the site. He doesn't have time to contribute to the development and hasn't for awhile.
Being an SMF user and a developer of a Joomla component, my reaction to this thread is that people are overly anxious about a CMS that isn't even released. Necessity is the mother of invention and perhaps there will be a solution that no one has thought of. Thats all that I want to say except for a special thanks to Orstio for all of his work, regardless of whether or not he decides to pursue a bridge for 1.5 .
tcp
Ditto!
Quote from: elfishtroll on January 05, 2007, 07:22:41 AM
I'm curious "joomla" why that name? do you speak for joomla* or have you just co opted that login (kinda like cyber squatting, w/o the cyber or the squatting :P)
You are obviously not a Joomla! forum user ;), this is me: http://forum.joomla.org/index.php/topic,122382.0.html
Quote from: elfishtroll on January 05, 2007, 07:22:41 AM
What has surprised me (a little bit, not too much, being around for two years with Joomla/Mambo) is the amount of inflammatory rhetoric on the Joomla side much of it flat out wrong - and just stupid! The arguments based on (If they dont like it, fk 'em! and "users are dumb" - which personally I hate MORE THAN YOU CAN POSSIBLY BELIEVE -I dont believe there is anything like 'dumb users' only dumb code and coders-but THAT is a topic for another thread.)
That's mostly just one person, who isn't an official Joomla anything. It's his own opinion that bridges aren't important. It's many others' opinion that it is. I'm not sure why he's wasting the effort.
QuoteI'm curious "joomla" why that name? do you speak for joomla* or have you just co opted that login (kinda like cyber squatting, w/o the cyber or the squatting :P)
Brad's a good guy :) The Joomla web master. He can't be that bad - he chose SMF for their forum, right? Hehehehe.
On that note as well, I'd like to defend Wolverine as well. He's never been anything but nice and helpful to the users of both bridges (though obviously mostly he's supported his own), just like Orstio. The Joomlahacks bridge branched off from Orstio's a long time ago, and I've never really seen any hostility between the developers. Orstio had good reason to want to minimize the core hacks, and Cowboy had a good reason for doing what he did the way he did, and from what I've seen, Wolverine has been top notch in developing that even further, and trying to make the hacks as painless as possible. Neither way is an absolute right or wrong way to do it. Just like bridging or not is not right or wrong.
I would like to add my comments to chadness... I have no actual problem with the joomlahacks integration, I just prefer my system to have no source code changes (for reasons that I have previously explained).
Cowboy and Wolverine have done a greta job with their integration... and since any joomla-smf link is going to HAVE to make source changes, that is the likely direction it will come from.
Quote from: -Wolverine on January 05, 2007, 01:20:07 AM
Quote from: Omega X on January 04, 2007, 11:27:04 PM
A petition was set up...Followed by mocks from the Joomla Hacks team and a mod claiming that J!1.5 is flexible.
http://forum.joomla.org/index.php/topic,127643.msg629260.html#msg629260
There is no team, just lil ole me. And I felt mocked by the bold red hack comment. Should have just said that instead. I'm not sure where you get off saying you would expect that of me, considering we have never spoken and I respond to such comments next to never. My integration is different, nuff said.
Well, I didn't make the big red bold Hack comment.
Also I've seen J! Hacks comments about Orstio's SMF bridge before. I don't know what came from who but not many were pretty no matter if they were tongue in cheek stuff or not. Nuff Said.
And as for Bridge integration, I'm with Kindred. I would rather not have to deal with core changes. I went through that once with other CMS installations and I'm not about to do it again. So if that means switching to Mambo when the time comes, then so be it.
You will have to excuse my newbiness lack of knowledge here.
It would seem that the main issue for the J1.5-smf bridge is to do with wrapping smf inside joomla
As smf is designed to be standalone, would it be simpler and easier to make a bridge version that was designed to simply allow 1 login/registration to access both for non wrapped smf
design of templates for the two apps could then be used to satisfy the cosmetics
QuoteAs smf is designed to be standalone, would it be simpler and easier to make a bridge version that was designed to simply allow 1 login/registration to access both for non wrapped smf
That would require, at the very least, modifications to SMF. That would be a modification package, not a bridge.
can SMF use an add on to it's login system to send 2 cookies, one for the smf login and 1 for the joomla login? And can it do that without having to change the core files?
apparently joomla can do this
Quotecan SMF use an add on to it's login system to send 2 cookies, one for the smf login and 1 for the joomla login?
Yes.
QuoteAnd can it do that without having to change the core files?
Not without a bridge structure to support it.
Thx for the reply
Quote from: old blue on January 04, 2007, 12:38:37 AM
Ironic that Joomla forums are SMF - surely they must be aware of this issue for many users...
Indeed that is ironic
not very ironic...the SMF forums at joomla are standalone--not bridged in anyway with joomla.
Quote from: Orstio on January 07, 2007, 11:45:39 AM
QuoteAs smf is designed to be standalone, would it be simpler and easier to make a bridge version that was designed to simply allow 1 login/registration to access both for non wrapped smf
That would require, at the very least, modifications to SMF. That would be a modification package, not a bridge.
far be it for me to correct the original bridge author :P
but isnt there a SSI_Login/Logout function in SMF (ssi_php) so that all you need to do on the Joomla side for minimal functionality: ie. Single Login is to just log in via Joomla, then, when the page refreshes, the code checks to see if Joomla is logged in and SMF is not, and if it isnt, then do the login?
I confess other than looking at SSI.php I havent done anything else, but even doing the opposite would work? (auto log in Joomla if SMF is logged in?)
As a code concept though, both Joomla and SMF need to name their variables better, both internally and in CSS: prefixing a css_class with J15 or SMF1 adds little overhead and would eliminate all the bs-clashes thousands of developers discovering that little rut in the road have encountered over the years.
The code where Global variables are overwritten has to go as well.
SMF was designed to be stand alone, so I guess Joomla should have named it's CSS better -hopefully they change that in J1.5
You have to give the Joomla guys some slack though. Much of all this effort is due to them wanting to FINALLY come out of the 'shadow of Mambo' and it's legacy code and really 'be their own person'. It's just growing pains really, and with a finite amount of part-time developers and an infinite amount of issues, its no wonder that there is a bit more of short tempered or rather, not as well thought out responses as everyone would like.
I believe extensive code changes WILL come out of SMF - SMF NEEDS to be more component based and not rely so much on being THE app. The web is all about assembly and mashups not code edifices.
While some may disagree,the post/respond model only goes so far, a site needs more than a forum.
That is why I think the key development area for SMF will be the SSI.php/API where people can draw on the SMF code base and design infrastructure WITHOUT EVEN HAVING A "RECOGNISABLE" FORUM.
Quotebut isnt there a SSI_Login/Logout function in SMF (ssi_php) so that all you need to do on the Joomla side for minimal functionality: ie. Single Login is to just log in via Joomla, then, when the page refreshes, the code checks to see if Joomla is logged in and SMF is not, and if it isnt, then do the login?
I don't think you would ever want to do it this way. It would work, no doubt, but think about the fact that you would be checking for a login in Joomla, and then checking for the corresponding login for SMF with each and every click of each and every guest (You would probably also want to check to see if a SMF user that was logged in was also logged into Joomla, yes?). That adds up to 3 queries minimum, possibly 6 if you actually want to migrate a user that exists in one but not the other, and up to 12 if you actually want to update member data etc. As I said before, this would seriously limit scalability; A forum of this size would never be able to handle it:
http://www.40konline.com/mos/index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=861
That is the reason the bridge only performs those queries on events like logging in and registering, instead of on each and every click.
QuoteAs a code concept though, both Joomla and SMF need to name their variables better, both internally and in CSS: prefixing a css_class with J15 or SMF1 adds little overhead and would eliminate all the bs-clashes thousands of developers discovering that little rut in the road have encountered over the years.
I think standardizing of CSS is always going to be an issue, regardless. Most templates/themes are made by third parties, have their own CSS, and there really aren't any naming conventions or guidelines.
QuoteYou have to give the Joomla guys some slack though. Much of all this effort is due to them wanting to FINALLY come out of the 'shadow of Mambo' and it's legacy code and really 'be their own person'. It's just growing pains really, and with a finite amount of part-time developers and an infinite amount of issues, its no wonder that there is a bit more of short tempered or rather, not as well thought out responses as everyone would like.
I don't think anyone needs to be blamed for the situation. Where I work, when things are going terribly wrong, we have an engineer who says "OK, this whole thing is my fault. Now that's out of the way, where do we go from here?" As I said before, the announcement was intended to give people time to weigh their options and decide what they wanted to do for their own sites. It was not intended to spur a whole lot of debate over whom to blame, political maneuvres like petitions and attempts at persuasion or convincing, nor a lot of conversation around virtual solutions on which I have already tried in practice many different variations over the past nine months of attempting. I know of seven different methods of bridging SMF to other applications without modifying source files, and trust me when I say I've tried all of them, and many variations on each, and I've come up with nothing satisfactory. I'm starting to think it would have been less hassle to wait until Joomla 1.5 was released, and just not make a bridge, and not bother answering questions about it, and letting people scramble at the last minute.
QuoteI believe extensive code changes WILL come out of SMF - SMF NEEDS to be more component based and not rely so much on being THE app. The web is all about assembly and mashups not code edifices.
The overwhelming majority of users who use SMF exclusively as a stand alone product would disagree with that statement. People who use SMF as a part of a CMS are a very small minority. Changing SMF to run mainly as a "component" (plugin?, module?, extension?, fusion?, depending on which CMS we're referring) of any particular CMS would limit its distribution, IMO.
Quote from: Orstio on January 08, 2007, 07:23:01 PM
I'm starting to think it would have been less hassle to wait until Joomla 1.5 was released, and just not make a bridge, and not bother answering questions about it, and letting people scramble at the last minute.
Thanks for not doing that, and yes, it probably would have been easier.
Orstio - Thanks. We'll get where we are going. It'll all make sense then. I appreciate what you have had to say. Amy :)
In the oft contentious field of software development, any path
not taken would've been the "best" one!
It's all about trade-offs.
Reading the (as yet uncensored ) threads at Joomla.org, to me it does seem, SMF got treated with a little less than the due regard one would expect... (3 months for a reply coming out of Joomla???)
In hindsight it's perfectly understandable. J-specific extensions like Community Builder,VirtuMart and Facile Forms strengthen the "Joomla Brand" -people will switch to Joomla (and follow it) BECAUSE of those applications; hence the alacrity when Facile Forms developer Peter Koch screams he cant get FF to work in 1.5! :) Everyone "drops everything" to prove it isnt so, and that the problems are not insurmountable.
Also, many of those Joomla Flagship "killer/must have" app devs are Joomla devs anyway.. you can rest assured that an upgrade path for Joomla isnt going to invalidate
their entire codebase overnight!
(Note, to paraphrase AmyStephens: this isnt indicative necessarily of "evil intent", but dont be surprised when a mother rushes into a burning Day Care Center; she invariably returns with HER child!
People tend to prioritize THEIR interests higher,tis only human nature:P
)
With SMF on the other hand, Joomla isn't really needed for it to work. Code wise, SMF is some years ahead of Joomla and its login (encrypting BEFORE passing passwords across the net) and ACL system. Bridging with Joomla actually WEAKENS SMF security more than anything as the bridge seems to fall back to the weaker MD5 code... Joomla cant take anything useful from SMF anyway, as SMF is NOT opensource but proprietary free, so f*ck SMF, 'they arent really "one of us" anyway' (actual quote)
anyway, (politics aside) to the REAL topic..
I was thinking that loading SSI.php (which I would be doing ANYWAY to expose the functionality that it offers) would give me the SMF login status via
$context['user']['is_logged'] and all I have to do is compare if there is the corresponding
$my-> information re: the Joomla side.
I confess to not looking at scalability issues regarding that, (or even if I could/would since I would be pulling SSI.php regardless) ... thats what I've been doing thus far successfully anyway.
I dont do any login/account bridging. SMF creates all user accounts, period, Joomla logins get converted en masse, one-time, NOT on the fly.
QuoteThe overwhelming majority of users who use SMF exclusively as a stand alone product would disagree with that statement. People who use SMF as a part of a CMS are a very small minority. Changing SMF to run mainly as a "component" (plugin?, module?, extension?, fusion?, depending on which CMS we're referring) of any particular CMS would limit its distribution, IMO.
Making SMF more component-able (new phrase, coined by me, feel free to use :D) I think that would actually make SMF *MORE* available not less!
It could be a simple matter of
extending SSI.php more, for instance ADD COMMENT, FEEDBACK could all be implemented with a call to SSI.php w/o having a 'recognizable forum interface'. (not that THAT is a bad thing, but just imagine: SMF within FLASH or Java?)
It would not be cannibalizing the existing user base, it would be adding!
You have a small blog or one page website: You can have a FULL ROBUST Discussion area with file uploads, quotes and attachments and all of the administrative control currently) -
without having a "forum" per se?
SMF would STILL exist as a stand-alone application though... the suggestions are not intended to replace the standalone functionality but to extend it.
What say you Ortiso?
P.s. I'm also interested in any 'cut and paste' comments Amy may have to add as well...
(https://www.simplemachines.org/community/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fspadafori.typepad.com%2Fphotos%2Funcategorized%2Fsock.jpg&hash=c47de6bb92392fd39b3bcefca596c00503e1a98f)
QuoteIt could be a simple matter of extending SSI.php more, for instance ADD COMMENT, FEEDBACK could all be implemented with a call to SSI.php w/o having a 'recognizable forum interface'. (not that THAT is a bad thing, but just imagine: SMF within FLASH or Java?)
It would not be cannibalizing the existing user base, it would be adding!
Actually, we've been discussing ways of extending SSI more. There are a few ideas on the table, and extensibility of SSI is a major point.
If you have ideas on additional SSI functions that would be useful, please feel free to start a topic about it in the Feature Requests (http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?board=3.0) board. You might not get a response, but rest assured, the devs all look in there for ideas to implement.
SSI can do some nifty, and even some powerful things, but I haven't really seen a full-on SSI-based site that actually uses what is currently available to its full potential. People usually just use the built-in functions, which are really just a small part of what SSI can really do. Take a look at the code from my "Related Topics" module for the bridge for an example of something a little more advanced that is completely based on SSI. While SSI is great, it will always have its limits, however. Some of the earlier bridges were SSI-based, and I ran into certain limitations with them that I could overcome by including SMF directly into an output buffer. One example of a limitation of SSI is the fact that sub-board themes are not respected (with good reason). It just wasn't quite enough for what bridge users needed.
That isn't to say that aren't users who wouldn't be perfectly happy with just a bit of SSI.
I think my head hurts now.. :( Joomla is nice, SMF is nice. Both are nice. If one is out, then there's no point to have a good CMS site.. How is it not going to be compatible the tables and database transferred to Mambo from Joomla?
There is always Mambo, Tiny Portal, MKPortal, etc
Too bad really, I was begining to like Joomla
I suggest you read the entire thread before reaching erroneous conclusions.
Quote from: joomla on January 21, 2007, 03:44:08 PM
I suggest you read the entire thread before reaching erroneous conclusions.
Which conclusion is erroneous?
that there are Mambo, TP etc as alternatives?
or that he always liked Joomla? :P
Maybe one should read the whole post before reaching erroneous conclusions?
sounds like words to live by!
(lmao)
No, in case anyone missed it:
There will be a bridge for Joomla 1.5
All this paranoia and hype is unnecessary.
Maybe close this thread, with your last message, to prevent miscommunication?
Quote from: joomla on January 22, 2007, 04:00:06 AM
No, in case anyone missed it:
There will be a bridge for Joomla 1.5
All this paranoia and hype is unnecessary.
Quote from: joomla on January 22, 2007, 04:00:06 AM
No, in case anyone missed it:
There will be a bridge for Joomla 1.5
All this paranoia and hype is unnecessary.
While the 'title' of the thread is perhaps unfortunate, it is the height of hyperbole (and some may even say rudeness) for you to demean the contents of it as 'PARANOIA' and 'HYPE'. :(
I agree that there WILL be bridges of some sort emerging between Joomla 1.5 and SMF, as "market forces" demand. The fact that NEITHER will appear to have the attentions of the core developers of either software would, past history being the guide, have the solutions (initially at least) being unfortunate kludges with significant manual editing to both code bases - something which we have thus far been spoiled to not have to do for the most part.
The contributions, questions and queries raised have for the most part been well reasoned and the "responses from the elders" have been remarkably well tempered, measured and helpful! ( with the obvious exceptions of course ^ ;)
However, if you really believe the contents are just inflammatory hype, paranoia etc, Joomla, then you should probably delete this thread. (for the good of the people)
The developers are continuing to work on the SMF to Joomla! v 1.5 bridge. Let's have faith in our community and show support for Orstio and the Joomla! developers.
Quote from: joomla on January 22, 2007, 04:00:06 AM
No, in case anyone missed it:
There will be a bridge for Joomla 1.5
All this paranoia and hype is unnecessary.
There
MAY be a bridge for Joomla 1.5. Again, while there seems to be a
VIRTUAL solution, it has not yet been tested in reality. I've been busy with other things (mainly RL), and have not been able to get around to it just yet.
Quote from: AmyStephen on January 22, 2007, 12:56:32 PM
The developers are continuing to work on the SMF to Joomla! v 1.5 bridge. Let's have faith in our community and show support for Orstio and the Joomla! developers.
That would be a more accurate statement. Thanks, Amy. ;)
Wow, I'm away for a few weeks and de poop hits de fans!
There is one thing to bear in mind; Joomla 1.5 is still a ways away from release.. By time it's released, I feel relatively certain that those with the passion and inclination will make this happen.
I think perhaps some SMF users, who have gotten used to Orstio, Kindred and the rest of the SMF team's down-to-earth attitude are perhaps taken aback a bit, as the a few of the Joomla developers give the appearance at times of being somewhat aloof; I say this with qualification, as I have not had much interaction with them, but the few questions that I have asked have always been responded to in a timely manner.
This is just MY opinion, and I hope it's not taken as an affront, it's certainly not meant that way.
-- Fred
I second M3g4d37h's post. Can you say w2k bug histeria?
There should be a thread thanking these guys for the work done so far.
A few developers mentioned have done more than just provide help.
Support they give can put entire organizations to shame...let's not forget they are volunteered developers that run on nothing but on motivation and their own time.
How about just plain old "Thank You for the heads-up"
...not every solution comes in a zip file just because you want it.
Don't get me wrong, personally am I new to community (but not to development that starts with paper...) and don't like the news either because they alter my 'greedy/convinient' ways of developing... but it feels like everyone wants to jump the man somewhere in the drak alley and extort for the solution. Besides, who is to say that solution you paied for will be there tomorrow...therefor we all need to quiet down just a bit and be thankful for a change. Belive it or not the world will not end. ;D
Much respect for the time put in guys...and all the best!
Quote from: lebisol on February 16, 2007, 02:57:46 AM
I second M3g4d37h's post. Can you say w2k bug histeria?
There should be a thread thanking these guys for the work done so far.
A few developers mentioned have done more than just provide help.
Support they give can put entire organizations to shame...let's not forget they are volunteered developers that run on nothing but on motivation and their own time.
How about just plain old "Thank You for the heads-up"
...not every solution comes in a zip file just because you want it.
Don't get me wrong, personally am I new to community (but not to development that starts with paper...) and don't like the news either because they alter my 'greedy/convinient' ways of developing...but it feels like everyone wants to jump the man somewhere in the drak alley and extort for the solution. Besides, who is to say that solution you paied for will be there tomorrow...therefor we all need to quiet down just a bit and be thankful for a change. Belive it or not the world will not end. ;D
Much respect for the time put in guys...and all the best!
LOL! where did you get THAT from! :D
in a nutshell: Ortiso got blown off for three months asking for info from the J! people re:integrating the bridge without hacking into the code of both or either module. With no response over 3 MONTHS and tons other stuff to do, he posted the message you read. A lot of people jumped on it and made a lot of noise in both places. The joomla guys then 'rediscovered' Orstio and after a little back and forth (and calmer heads) they restated the problem and they were able to find (after finally working together) that the bridge was possible -under the correct rules of not hacking the code- after all!
Thats the whole story basically :P
Now drink the rest of your warm milk and go back to bed! :)
QuoteNow drink the rest of your warm milk and go back to bed
LOL...my child.