Hey,
I was just wonderig - I remember hearing a while back that there would be a seperate site for MOD development? Is this so or will it become part of the forums here? Also - any clue as to when the MOD site would open - I assume upon release of the beta of SMF?
Grudge
That is correct, there will be a MOD site which is also under development at this time. It will open once Charter Members receive the first betas.
Will there be something set up like the supermod-
Where all the Current mods will be in one package so we dont have to manually reinstall after each upgrade?
I loved YaBBse and one of the reasons I moved to the supermod was too many changes for an idiot like myself to have to fix and the potential for error was too high. Some MODs I really liked and were never added to YaBBse like the map, quick reply, whos online and chat?
Any plans are adding these to the actual package or at least combining them in one upgrade like supermod?
We've debated making a "supermod" like package as well and we'll se where we go with that but we're currently looking at altering our license so that if there is to be one like that, it will only be allowed to be on this site.
/me doesnt like mod's ;)
Supermod is a user's mod/site. I really don't think it is affiliated with YSE or SMF directly so you would probably want to ask the creator(s).
Quote from: groundup on August 03, 2003, 01:06:55 PM
Supermod is a user's mod/site. I really don't think it is affiliated with YSE or SMF directly so you would probably want to ask the creator(s).
We most likely won't allow ourselves to get into a position like that again, too many headaches and it really takes away from real development time.
Perhaps a team here at SMF dedicated to making a fully modded package or something...
Quote from: Jeff Lewis on August 03, 2003, 01:06:40 PM
We've debated making a "supermod" like package as well and we'll se where we go with that but we're currently looking at altering our license so that if there is to be one like that, it will only be allowed to be on this site.
That would make it a whole heck of alot easier!
I hope you guys go for it-its a great idea and one of the other cool things is that if a board's members dont like a particular mod, all ya need to do is disable it.
See the hobby I'm in is very cuthroat. Everyone's trying to one up the other. One thing my site prided itself on was the forums. We were the first to use YaBB and the first to migrate to SE then other sites suddenly popped up with their own SE but never upgraded to current versions or added mods, whereas we always did. And with all the recent upgrades, supermod saved me the trouble of re-installing every single mod time after time. Please consider this cause I REALLY wanna switch over SMF!
This is the precise version why I don't mod my forum.
Because i'd rather not have that extra headache.
There isnt really a guarantee that mod's are updated for new versions, and waiting for the mod before upgrading could be potentially hazardous if its a security issue.
The mod team will be giving approval ratings to mods and doing security checks. Also, compatibility issues will be out in the open. If you want to install 2 mods and they are not compatible, and someone has created a mod to make this possible, there will be a link in the database for you to go to it instead of having to search.
But some feaures Ive gotten so used to by now, plus the supermod guys were usually up to dat with upgrades and the security patches never really affected the mods. I would just prefer to get it all at one place- the OFFICIAL place.
And now that that the concept is successful,(since you guys are looking into it) I can get one with even more features because some of the real talented guys here chose not to allow their MODs to be used there.
Im so loving SMF right now-
EXCELLENT WORK!!
Quote from: Jeff Lewis on August 03, 2003, 01:06:40 PM
We've debated making a "supermod" like package as well and we'll se where we go with that but we're currently looking at altering our license so that if there is to be one like that, it will only be allowed to be on this site.
THAT is BAD MOJO. Why would you take away one of the best things about YSE? Why would you WANT to support a heavily modded version?
Two simple questions....
Quote from: mephisto_kur on August 03, 2003, 03:23:25 PM
Quote from: Jeff Lewis on August 03, 2003, 01:06:40 PM
We've debated making a "supermod" like package as well and we'll se where we go with that but we're currently looking at altering our license so that if there is to be one like that, it will only be allowed to be on this site.
THAT is BAD MOJO. Why would you take away one of the best things about YSE? Why would you WANT to support a heavily modded version?
Two simple questions....
lol, you just contradicted yourself. You do or don't want there to be a supported 'super-mod'? I personally don't want there to be, but that isn't my choice.
Here are your answers...
1) Because it's a pain in the ass. We had two seperate issues come up where people have "created" (really they aren't creating anything, the coders here do the creating) their own "version" of SE and that caused issues. Pissed off developers, pissed off MOD writers, cost us money to talk to a lawyer. It's an all around huge pain in the rump. Now that isn't to say it wouldn't be possible but there needs to be more control over it. While one project may be a huge pain, another isn't (take pfabb for example, it's been nice to work with michele).
2) I never said I WANTED to, we said we could discuss it :) Besides, we still get support requests for things like Supermod and MOD writers have requests to support it. If it was kept here at least we'd KNOW what the hell was going into the package.
I do like the idea of supermod but never used it because of trouble getting other mods to work with it. What I would REALLY like to see is MOD makers making more of an effort not to cause conflicts.
It is actually VERY rare to find two mods than actually conflict as far as operation goes - just mainly installation. The biggest problem by far as sql queries in popular modules (such as profiles etc). Too many mod makers (myself included I'm sure) do searches to replace sql statements instead of inserting statements.
I don't want to get too into technicalitites but a mod that does:
search for:
$request = mysql_query("
SELECT passwd, realName, emailAddress, websiteTitle, websiteUrl, signature, posts, memberGroup, ICQ, AIM, YIM, gender, personalText, avatar, dateRegistered, location, birthdate, timeFormat, timeOffset, hideEmail, ID_MEMBER, usertitle, karmaBad, karmaGood, lngfile, MSN, secretQuestion, secretAnswer
FROM {$db_prefix}members
WHERE memberName='$user'") or database_error(__FILE__, __LINE__);
$memsettings = mysql_fetch_array($request);
replace with:
$request = mysql_query("
SELECT passwd, realName, emailAddress, websiteTitle, websiteUrl, signature, posts, memberGroup, ICQ, AIM, YIM, gender, personalText, avatar, dateRegistered, location, birthdate, timeFormat, timeOffset, hideEmail, ID_MEMBER, usertitle, karmaBad, karmaGood, lngfile, MSN, secretQuestion, secretAnswer, THEIRFIELDHERE
FROM {$db_prefix}members
WHERE memberName='$user'") or database_error(__FILE__, __LINE__);
$memsettings = mysql_fetch_array($request);
Makes it impossible to install another mod without getting errors. All the code in SMF should be formatted in such a way as to make it easy to insert fields into querys etc. ie:
$request = mysql_query("
SELECT passwd, realName, emailAddress,
Insert AFTER:
MYFIELDHERE
So that it won't cause any trouble for other mod installations. The fact is many people use supermod etc because soon as you install more than 3 fairly large mods on your board every other mod has to be installed by hand....
Of course a nice (possible) solution would be if SMF incoorporated many mods in it from the outset. And at each upgrade the more popular mods get incoorporated - I know this would lead to a slightly more bloated download but probably only a few hundred k, and they could all be switched off by default. It would basically do what supermod do but safe in the knowledge that all the mods that are shipped with it are secure (ie tested by the SMF team)
It kind of reminds me of the fact that YABB SE shipped with many mods installed with it as standard - just keeping up that trend (ie the calendar mod and many other bits and bobs)
/me awards myself for my long post
Quote from: groundup on August 03, 2003, 03:26:07 PM
Quote from: mephisto_kur on August 03, 2003, 03:23:25 PM
Quote from: Jeff Lewis on August 03, 2003, 01:06:40 PM
We've debated making a "supermod" like package as well and we'll se where we go with that but we're currently looking at altering our license so that if there is to be one like that, it will only be allowed to be on this site.
THAT is BAD MOJO. Why would you take away one of the best things about YSE? Why would you WANT to support a heavily modded version?
Two simple questions....
lol, you just contradicted yourself. You do or don't want there to be a supported 'super-mod'? I personally don't want there to be, but that isn't my choice.
I see no contradiction. I asked why they would shut out mod developers, and I asked why they would want to take on the responsibility of supporting it themselves.
Going the way this thread has gone puts me in a bad mind about this switch. Frankly, I *never* want to see an officially supported Supermod. What I would want is for mod creators to continue to have full reign over what they produce and where they support it. I have always felt that one of the greatest strengths of YSE was its SEPARATE mod community. Sure, it's nice to have a mod section as a central place to tell others about your mod, but no matter how involved the mod is, no matter how "super" I don't think the YSE people should be involved in any way shape or form beyond that central repository. What I think should be clear is that Supermod (lets not mince words) or any other mod not be able to adjust the license to screw mod writers. I guess I'm saying I thought the software was great when it was covered under the GPL and changing from that has caused more problems than it seems to have solved.
Quote from: Grudge on August 03, 2003, 03:45:13 PM
What I would REALLY like to see is MOD makers making more of an effort not to cause conflicts.
*Exactly*Can I make it more clear that this is my thought *exactly*?
;)
Its unavoidable sometimes though as there are certain lines that must be modified and theres no way around that?
Sorry if I seem so enthusiastic about this topic. It's just that when I think of the one big thing I love most about YSE it has to be the freedom the software offers. I won't lie and say that (at least up til SMF gets released) YSE has an abundance of features - frankly, it is severely lacking compared to much of the competition. I will say that I believe that IBf has lost me as a future customer entirely because of my love for how free YSE has been.
The intention isn't to limit MOD writers (and we haven't done any changes yet) it's to make sure that the MOD writers and developers are protected.
Why should all these people work so many hours to have their work stolen and have to go through all this stress? it's deeply annoying.
Quote from: Jeff Lewis on August 03, 2003, 05:26:58 PM
The intention isn't to limit MOD writers (and we haven't done any changes yet) it's to make sure that the MOD writers and developers are protected.
Why should all these people work so many hours to have their work stolen and have to go through all this stress? it's deeply annoying.
Oh trust me, I agree.
I just worry that in an effort to protect the mod writers you are taking on ownership of those mods, yourself. Why should you take on the legal responsibility of protecting my code if I specifically don't want you to?
I never ONCE said anywhere that we were taking ownership of MODS, I said it was being discussed to tighten up the license to prevent things like SuperMOD in the future without our permission first.
Never ONCE have I ever said that about MODs.
Why is it that everyone needs to pick at negative things? ;)
Things should hum along at the same rate as before.
We offered three options for MOD authors at SE, if they want to release it as GPL then so be it.
When a mod author submits a mod for download they will have the option to choose what license they wish for it to be under. Downloaders will then have to agree to the license before they download it. Authors will be able to choose from a variety of open source licenses, public domain, one that our lawyer writes, as well as typing their own.
We cannot control your mod with the SMF license, only can set limitations on how SMF can be redistributed.
I'd just like to tag on with some more info on Mod compatibility. The "editing SQL" piece mentioned up above is a very good sample.
Another thing I see, although not so much recently, but in older mods, is something like this:<search for>
global $txt, $settings, $db_prefix;
</search for>
<replace>
global $txt, $settings, $db_prefix, $modsettings;
</replace>
This really shuts out any other mods to that particular function. Instead, MOD developers should use:<search for>
global $txt, $settings, $db_prefix;
</search for>
<add after>
//additional globals added for the new cool mod I built
global $modsettings;
</add after>
And as far as I'm concerned, the comment tag is NOT optional.
SMF has comments almost everywhere so mods should be written to search for a comment and not a block of code. This is how mods are supposed to be written now anyway but people don't seem to do this. The mod team is going to come up with more documentation on how mods should be written. The guidelines would have to be followed (to some extent) to get the mod officially approved. Unapproved mods will still be in the mod site, but there will be a big fat warning for the downloader.
This thread has gotten pretty weird...kinda like a mass panic about modding...pretty funny actually.
First off, I don't believe anything was said about SMF taking mod rights from us...I just don't see it anywhere. They said they're going to try to PREVENT another Supermod from happening. They trying to limit someone's ability to collect a lot of mods, package them, install them on a fresh board, and distribute SMF as a seperate version. *shrug*
Secondly...as for a "official" SMF Supermod offshoot, one done by people on the dev team (or a seperate approved dev team)...just doesn't sound all that great to me. I'm fully aware that a lot of people don't know the first thing about php/mysql (I didn't till 3 months ago, either), but...you guys haven't even seen the new system yet. Why not give it a chance before trying to replace it, eh? On another thread on this very board, Jeff recognized that the Completed Mods board on the other site was a mess - something that I agree with. It was messy and unorganized...but then again it was practically just managed by all of the mod creators. :p It sounds like BigP and his team (has a team?) are putting a lot of effort into streamlining this system and making it more accessible...I'm just saying wait and see and take a looksie at what they've cooked up for us before spilling the soup all over the persian rug.
Thirdly, as far as mods that add stuff to the ends of statements and put the semi colon in new place (or other similiar things), this is kind of the responsibility of the authors, but as it was said earlier in this thread, it sounds like the people who head the mod team will be checking for security/compatibility of things. I myself am guilty of stuff like that, mostly because I mod on the go on my own forum, and I just keep attaching global variables to it. Though this doesn't make it impossible.
Fourth and last....one must also remember the mindset that you should always have when modding...you're changing code, things can go wrong - terribly wrong, depending on what you do. Always back up. If something goes wrong, immediantly reupload the backup and go see what you did wrong while allowing people to continue to use your site. This is basic knowledge that ANYONE installing mods should have and it doesn't require a lot of computer knowledge. Just be file smart and you should be ok. :D
Lots of ranting, oh well, ignore it. :)
Methonis
Grudge, the third thing I worked on with SMF was making all queries like that. They now all are... there is NO single line query in all the sources.
I was actually the one who gave this idea partially because of my constant miscommunications and problems with the current author. The idea is a "SMF Max" version that would simply have more features built into it... Kind of like MySQL has a max edition. (very roughly like.)
It would still be free... there would be freedom. And, every mod would be formally included into the package, with the permission of the mod author. Care owuld be taken to smoothly integrate the mod in - even to the point of slight reprogramming - such that it would work well with others.
But.. we haven't decided and we still may not do it.
Mephisto_kur, WE OWN ALL THE MODS. Legally, we do... any derivative work is the sole property of the derived work in question. But, we would still respect the author's wishes. We also DO have the legal responsibility of protecting the mods as... we own them.
Sorry, it's the sad truth. Fan art, fan fiction - all owned by the original work's creator. You sell the fan work, and they can SUE THE PANTS off you.
However, like Jeff Lewis said here - we want to make sure that the license SMF is released under allows the mod writers to have the rights they really should over the mods. And we will try to assure that. We don't want to have to own them, that's only LEGALLY the case.
If you don't believe me, ask a lawyer who specializes in copyright law or read international copyright law. If you haven't done that then you can't say I'm wrong because I have.
David... sorta wrong there. We can control the mod, and we can control how things are distributed.
Haase, there were some mod writing guidelines at some point that covered exactly that.
Metho, I agree. Mass panic. It happens, sadly. But.. you don't have any rights really unless we give them to you... which we plan to. But, I agree mostly with most of what you said.
-[Unknown]
Quote from: Jeff Lewis on August 03, 2003, 05:38:59 PM
I never ONCE said anywhere that we were taking ownership of MODS, I said it was being discussed to tighten up the license to prevent things like SuperMOD in the future without our permission first.
Never ONCE have I ever said that about MODs.
Why is it that everyone needs to pick at negative things? ;)
Things should hum along at the same rate as before.
We offered three options for MOD authors at SE, if they want to release it as GPL then so be it.
Whoa. I didn't say you were. I was just trying to push for real clarification (which David gives a post or two below the quoted one). The TOS on the current YSE site does suggest that you are not allowed to do anything with a mod (besides download and install it) without contacting the mod author, or the YSE (soon to be SMF) team. I just don't think you guys should take on that responsibility. As long as I can use the GPL, as David says, I will gladly throw my (meager offerings) mods to the community. But I want others to be able to build on what I did, tweak it and hand it back with improvements.
Jeff, we occasionally seem to be at each other throats. I don't understand this. I know I can be persistent, but I have never attacked you. My wording may be a bit blunt at times, but please take it the way it is meant - analytical, not personal.
No one here is at anyone elses throats.... where's Joseph Fung's topic again?
-[Unknown]
QuoteI will gladly throw my (meager offerings) mods to the community. But I want others to be able to build on what I did, tweak it and hand it back with improvements.
Amen to that. But that's precisely why I want someone to contact me if they're going to change to code. If they are going to make it better, I need to understand what they did so that I, myself, can become a better coder. If they just take the code and enhance without letting me know about it... then I loose that opportunity. But, in truth, as long as there's something that will prevent someone else from making monetary gain from my hard work, I'm fine.
QuoteJeff, we occasionally seem to be at each other throats. I don't understand this. I know I can be persistent, but I have never attacked you. My wording may be a bit blunt at times, but please take it the way it is meant - analytical, not personal.
I'm sure Jeff understands. He might not have the same passion for debate as you (or I), but I think he gets it. I don't think you're being overly offensive, and anyway it's the people who counter by being overly defensive that contribute to the downward spiral.
I think everyone's okay.
I just get annoyed and then sometimes my replies aren't as well thought out as I should make them.
You know when people complain and complain and are never happy? (not saying you guys at all) That's happened a ot lately and it's annoying (again not you guys).
We're trying to turn this into something big, something bold, something we can all be proud of :)
Quote from: Jeff Lewis on August 03, 2003, 09:52:50 PM
I just get annoyed and then sometimes my replies aren't as well thought out as I should make them.
You know, if I could get what's on my mind to come out of my mouth correctly, or through the keyboard correctly, I'd probably reduce the number of arguments I get into to about 25% :-\
Like I said, I don't mean you guys ;)
Quote from: Jeff Lewis on August 03, 2003, 09:52:50 PMYou know when people complain and complain and are never happy?
Anyone who runs a forum knows exactly what you're saying. ;)
I find that the best way to relieve that sort of stress is to fantasize painful deaths for the biggest complainers and then share the scenarios with the people who work on the forum with me. It works for us. ;D
And BTW, I'm really impressed with what I've seen so far of SMF. (http://www.dsboards.com/dsboards/Smileys/thumb.gif)
Great stuff! Thanks for the tip too! ;)
Oh, great. Now there's going to be a "Kill Mephisto_kur" Easter Egg flash game or something.
;) You're hardly the orst of the bunch :P At least you mean well :)
I agree with what Haase posted about the globals example I haven't always done this but know to, the none single lined MySQL query's would be the other thing I would really like some times it's hard to make a mod and not mod over another mod that has changed they query but I do try to offer as much help as I can when someone can't install someone Else's mod over mine.
and the super-mod thing has bugged me since the guy asked to include the zodiac mod and I've been holding back on the next version that puts the text and images in the language files, matches the dates in the query and has less info in the database, I got it stream lined for Trinity instead of releasing it. can't wait to integrate it with SMF.
But this now forum software sounds and even looks better! ;D
I always had an issue with some table cells being bigger the the bg image because on padding and spacing, haven't seen the problem here yet!
Can't wait!
You know...sometimes in life, to be able to do something that is superior to the norm, you have to exert some effort.
Using the mod installer worked about 75% of the time, which was great. But sometimes it didn't which required me to put forth some of my own effort to figure out how to make it install correctly. Almost all of the time I could figure it out. Ones that I couldn't figure out I just skipped.
To ask these guys to do ALL of the work for you just isn't right. They provide a GREAT product and don't charge anything for it. It's irrational to expect them to account for all of the users and all of the boards and all of the configurations.
http://www.woopig.net/php/
I don't know if this is off topic or not but what I'd really love to see is, instead of a "supermod / SMF-MAX" or whatever be released is an official yabb-pack style server. People would be able to submit mods to a completed mods forum like on the old board. A MOD team could then verify that their mods are secure and unconflicting (obviously in their own time) and then added to the official yabb-pack (style :) ) server. If all "approved" mods obeyed rules about coding - basically only ever doing Add After/ Add Before style changes - there should never be any conflicts. This would then mean that any user can easily add/remove mods knowing they will be compatible.
It would also mean that if someone updates a mod that is part of some "supermod" style package that the whole package doesn't have to be updated - instead just the new version uploaded to the server. This could then lead onto more complicated scenarios like a message flashing up in the admin panel when an installed mod has been updated etc etc
I know it would be a huge effort but it would take full use of the package system, make it very easy for anyone to install mods, and to ensure mod writers are given credit for mods they write (ie authors name etc next to the description in the "install mods" section)
This is more of a "dream idea" but maybe one day something like this could become reality??
Everything you just said is a summary (of sorts) to the mod site, except the blinking thing in the admin center. So something like what vB has? You can install mods from the admin panel. It is pretty much what a yabbpak (or a smfpack (?)) is.
I've never tried vb...
Anyway - yes - being able to install MODS with the admin centre. But unlike YABB SE where you have to find peoples servers on your own there should be an "official" server where all approved mods can be hosted.
Example, say I make a mod and I post it in a (currently non existant) completed mods board. People try it and post about it. I make fixes etc. After a minimum waiting period (maybe 2 weeks) the mod is given a quick once over my a member of the "mod staff". They just check there is no obvious security risks etc. My mod is then added to the official database with a description of what it does etc.
Maybe this is asking too much but I think it would be just grand :D
I was working on the updated thing but it never caught on.
I also always use replace because add whatever had problems for me at first... but all my replaces equate to add's. So replace shouldn't be disallowed...
Yeah, something like that. You'll post it as done or send it in or soemthing, and we'll upload it on the server once we look over it... and all will be happy.
-[Unknown]
Grudge, it would be more like this ...
1.) you submit a form with the mod
2.) it goes into a 'unapproved' board
3.) someone from the mod team reviews it
... a.) Gets put into the approved mods board and you get a message
... b.) Gets rejected, deleted, and you get a message of why
If it gets accepted, you can submit changes.
If it doesn't, you can submit your mod again and again with the changes.
Rejected mods would be because they aren't actually mods (spam), they harm a board, they don't work (BM errors or the script doesn't work), or something bad. The guidelines will be posted when the mod site is ready.
Unknown: the only problems with the updated idea are that how will they know when the mods are updated? They will have to keep a list of installed mods. Would that be in a table, XML, or flat text file? Then when would that file/table be updated? Would it be when they click a link to check for updates of mods? Would it be an interval? Would it happen everytime they visit the admin center? Of course, all mods would be referenced by their id instead of their name so the size of that really doesn't matter. (talk on ICQ)
XML and it already does. Keep up with the times.
It would be updated when they connect to a server or open the package manager. (it would connect to the default server via rpc.)
-[Unknown]
/me has never used a 'package'
I have probably installed a total of 5 mods in my time. I have always created my own mods.
Sounds very cool. A few questions:
Would the brave of heart and strong of constitution be able to download mods from the "unapproved" area for testing(with a big disclaimer of course)?
When( and it will be when, not if) we begin upgradng from yabb se to smf will our existing mods be destroyed, or will they continue to work as they did when upgrading yabb se versions?
I like the idea of incorporating popular(or even unpopular, but useful)mods into new releases/upgrades. No matter how good a job you do someone is going to find something that it doesn't contain but they want, and make a mod for it. It would cut down on problems and support questions if each upgrade contained all the "cool new toys" in an official, secure, and bug free release. That would also avoid having someone make a "supermod", and inspire people to upgrade. The mods would be evolutionary to the developement, instead of individual customization. Hope I said all that correctly.
yes
no
ummm... I think that is what is planned?
Cool
*#%&-I think most of my curent mods are going to end up as standard features anyway
Excellent
2 out of three ain't bad at all ;D
Quote from: groundup on August 05, 2003, 05:45:16 AM
yes
no
ummm... I think that is what is planned?
I would like to interject if I may.
Could it be possible instead to just include each new regular version of SMF, packs for each approved mod in the Package Updater section. This would be kind of like the best of both worlds. If you don't want to use a particular package, you don't have to worry about any additional code slowing down your page-times. And the packages that you *do* want, it's just a simple click of a button to install it.
If any of you have ever set up squirrelmail, you know what I'm talking about. You go to the mods section, type the number of the mod you want to activate, and it's activated. Type the number of the mod you want to de-activate, and it's deactivated.
What I'm basically saying is that if you follow through with the 100% mod compatibility/approved mod philosophy, then there really is no need for a supermod kind of thing. IMHO, one of SuperMods biggest selling points was that the ordinary user didn't have to deal with compatibility issues. I mean, even after installing just 2 mods, I was pretty much forced to manually edit some sections to get the mods to work. Of course... that's also how I learned PHP.
In closing... give me "SMF Lite" please... I don't want all that uneccesary crap cludging up my system.
Haase, there are plenty of the people on the team who will make sure SMF does not have too much crap. ;) Some people even feel the calendar should be removed.
Quote from: David on August 05, 2003, 02:50:53 PM
Some people even feel the calendar should be removed.
EXACTLY! ;)
groundup I think we have another recruit! ;)
Haase: Gobalopper and I are pretty much the anti-bloat committee.
I would take out the Calendar if it weren't already in there. I don't think taking it out is a possiblity now.
That's why I want an SMF Max. I don't want "SMF" and "SMF Lite" I want the standard edition to be lite. Just my opinion.
-[Unknown]
What do you guys have against the calendar? Many communities use it to plan events on???
The reason why people get forum software is for the forum. If I wanted a calendar software, I would get it. There isn't much advancement as far as the calendar because no one is focused on it. Thus, it lacks in things that people expect from a calendar. What does that lead people to do? get better calendar scripts. That means that now they have 2 calendars. This is bloat. It was bloat from the start, but this just shows how much bloat it is.
Thats not true, people get a forum to add to their community. An example is my baseball site, we plan events and use the calendar.
Forums aren't just messages anymore, you have to get over that. They have grown to be much bigger, the bar has been raised.
How often do you use that calendar? Daily? Have you modded it? Wouldn't you want more features in it? Adding more features to it in SMF would be adding to the bloat, so a lot of people will just get another calendar software.
If it's not added, people will complain and it will be another reason to go elsewhere.
It's called compeition. You either get involved against it or you fall behind in the pack - sorry :)
Personally, I'd like to see the Simple Machines team have mods - things like the calendar that are REALLY nice features for the forum to have, but some people will never ever use and etc.
Personally, the only way I have ever used the calendar is for the birthday feature. Otherwise... it's never really been something I use. However, I still think it's something that should be kept and go in the distribution because.. it's already in there.
If it wasn't in there, I would include it as an in-house mod. Might even come with the distirbution, in the Packages folder... just not installed by default. And I'd like to have other things somewhat like that. (not sure on including them by default.)
-[Unknown]
[Unknown], that kind of goes pack to my original argument. If you ensure that all the mods are cross compatible, then there is no need to two have two versions at all. Ship the base version with all the "SMF Approved" mods as packages. Then anyone can have a SuperMod equivelant site in 30 minutes just by applying all the packages they want. Hell, it shouldn't even be that hard to set up a mod prerequisite tool --> "You selected Mod B, which requires Mod C and Mod F be installed first. Install these mods?"
And the rest of us can just have our we thin board. Surely, this would save you guys a heck of a lot of time... you're going to have approved mods anyway, and that way you don't have to worry about supporting 2 different releases of the same software.
Haase: Besides a couple of mods, I don't think we should include 'all' of the mods. Or even a large portion. A lot of people are still using dialup and I remember those days. It would take me a little while to download a zip.
I like the calendar ;)
Only for birthday and few events, but is a nice addon...
with the possibility of disabling it, should be enough...
i;)
Quote from: Haase on August 05, 2003, 09:06:28 PM
[Unknown], that kind of goes pack to my original argument. If you ensure that all the mods are cross compatible, then there is no need to two have two versions at all. Ship the base version with all the "SMF Approved" mods as packages. Then anyone can have a SuperMod equivelant site in 30 minutes just by applying all the packages they want. Hell, it shouldn't even be that hard to set up a mod prerequisite tool --> "You selected Mod B, which requires Mod C and Mod F be installed first. Install these mods?"
And the rest of us can just have our we thin board. Surely, this would save you guys a heck of a lot of time... you're going to have approved mods anyway, and that way you don't have to worry about supporting 2 different releases of the same software.
Finally after 60 replies someone offers a reasoable solution ;D
A thin board is the thing of the past for many users, it wll just drive folks to VB and IVB - my $.02
gandolphxx: it will never be 'thin'. there are more features than most will ever use. The reason a couple of us keep on talking about bloat is because no matter how many features we have, people will want more, this is going to eventually cause a lot of problems. Also, if people want to keep adding features that not everyone is going to use, we can make mods.
Quote from: groundup on August 06, 2003, 12:14:08 AM
Haase: Besides a couple of mods, I don't think we should include 'all' of the mods. Or even a large portion. A lot of people are still using dialup and I remember those days. It would take me a little while to download a zip.
Well, there's always the Package Server. It would be even easier to implement than including them into the install zip. As soon as a mod is approved, it gets moved into the package server. Instead of downloading it from the thread or the downloads area and manually moving the file into boardmod or into your packages folder, you just go into your admin panel and browse the package server.
Look, I'm not suggesting you remove features that are already there, and although I agree that bloat is bad, I'm not going to deny that some new features are useful. All I'm trying to get across is that you guys have a better alternative than having to release 2 versions of the software.
And again, I'm not saying that having a second release more difficult. It's just administratively more time consuming. You suddenly have another full set of tasks to complete, and then you suddenly have another version of the software to support. People start asking help or installation questions, and then you have to keep asking them which version they have. Pretty soon your fed up with that so you set up different support boards for each version. Then the dev teams become more isolated and before you know it you've got "SMF SE" to contend with.
The best outcome would be mods that work well with each other so that you can have a bare bones board if you want but those who want the extras can just install them. I think that is partly the plan we have for the new Boardmod site, to ensure that as many mods work with eachother as possible.
In my opinion the best option would be a basic forum that has all the standard features and the ability to add new ones with a single click.
Yeah, just adding them simply would be great, I think it was the other thread I said about an idea of a customized install package, where you choose the features you want on your forum and it generates the php files for you. Would be good if it worked properly :)
Quote from: groundup on August 06, 2003, 03:16:03 AM
gandolphxx: it will never be 'thin'. there are more features than most will ever use. The reason a couple of us keep on talking about bloat is because no matter how many features we have, people will want more, this is going to eventually cause a lot of problems. Also, if people want to keep adding features that not everyone is going to use, we can make mods.
I am sorry but I have to disagree - this board is thin compared to the competition - when you have 8000 users they expect more - a simple example: where is the bloat in the All mod for folks who want the whole thread delivered. Lots of folks have high speed connections now and don't want to be hassled with next - previous - my $.02
Its an option to allow X number of posts to be displayed in display or messageindex
I agree Gandolph, it's still lacking and we're working on adding more. However, we still have some guys who think it's "bloated" already and would love to remove features if they weren't already in there ::)
What people need to understand is that there is competition and that competition needs to be met - and we're going to attempt that with SMF.
On a side note: I think the package server thing is much better than boardmod. I, and a lot of others have had nothing but trouble with boardmod. Also, with, lets see, 6 forums going now, being able to make changes(mods, and upgrades) from the admin panel is a heck of a lot more convienent than using third party apps to do it.
Quote from: truecrimson on August 09, 2003, 11:40:41 PM
On a side note: I think the package server thing is much better than boardmod. I, and a lot of others have had nothing but trouble with boardmod. Also, with, lets see, 6 forums going now, being able to make changes(mods, and upgrades) from the admin panel is a heck of a lot more convienent than using third party apps to do it.
/me agrees
Every mod I've made - to my recollection - has been for the package manager. I could not agree more....
And, Jack.R.Abbit couldn't either... in fact, he goes farther and doesn't release packages for boardmod at all.
-[Unknown]
For simple mods, things that only update a little code, I think boardmod is okay. But when you need new files moved into Sources, a database update run, etc... the Package Manager really rules the roost in this aspect. How many times have you seen a post where someone tried to install something in boardmod but it didn't work... then you ask them if they ran the database update file and they said "what's that?"
The only problem I've run into with the Package Manager is some people refusing to use it. ::)
;D
My preferences goes to a "clean" board with a Mod site, like boardmod.yabbforum.com, where can be found both yabbpack ( server name ) and boardmod file.
or will the namechange exclude boardmod ?
yabbpaks (or whatever) will most likely be supported more in the future. I still prefer Boardmod, as when you want to add a good number of large mods, chances are you'll run into incompatability.
There is no way to prevent this, but at least with boardmod it is easy modify code to make it compatable. With packages, it'll be nigh on impossible for Joe "SMF" User.
i prefer boardmod because sometimes the code needs a bit of tweaking, specially when one mod doesnt work with another, which cant be done when you're using packman
but thats just me, cuz im a mod writer
i havent updated my package server for months
i dont think anyone ever requested me to update it...
Likewise, I use boardmod most of the time for the reason Sliff said about being able to edit the mod slightly to get it to work. Just prefair to have that little bit more control, e ven though it is less convinient.
The only problem I have with BoardMod is that, from what I hear (never used it actually), it only does entire line searches. This makes mod writting a bit different. I like YaBBPaks because you don't need to do entire line searches.
Well, I'll have to say that 3 or 4 of you who just posted haven't been paying close enough attention to the beginning of the thread. Sure, you may prefer boardmod because of conflicts/incompatibility between mods, but the whole premise of this thread is that Simple Machines will be putting more effort towards a set of "SMF Approved" mods. Part of this effort would be to ensure that all approved mods were compatible.
I still think that Package Managers's ability to parse out and run a DB update script gives it a huge advantage over boardmod, on which Joe "SMF" User is going to get confused if he has to upload a page and navigate it once and only once. This I believe is responsible for a.) uneccesary questions like "I ran the db script a second time and got an error, is that okay" b.) users with duplicate rows in settings.php, etc.
Quote
Part of this effort would be to ensure that all approved mods were compatible.
Not possible without various different releases for each mod. Incompatability *willl* happen. It's just a matter of time. I personally started learning Perl by trying to install Mods on the original Yabb and by coming across errors. I don't like the idiot proof way the world is turning... Damn you M$!!111
I, for one, am fully aware of the topic of this thread :P But I think that had already been answered. And yes, its being worked on. AS far as I understand, there will be both mod formats available for download.
Well, it's just my opinion, but I had nothing but trouble with boardmod. I couldn't get anything to work with it, even on a clean board, so I ended up doing all non yabbpak mods in dreamweaver code view, by hand.
As for the yabbpaks, I have never had a single problem. I had about 5 mods on my board when I used my first yabb pak, and it worked flawlessly(Jack'sweather forecast mod). No yabb pak ever caused me any problems.
:D
:D people like my features :)
I realize I'm getting into this conversation rather late but why can't boardmod files and yabbpack files be compatible? Then if someone wishes to dl the file and install it themselves then can, or use the packager. I haven't looked at the code but it can't be that hard. They are just manipulating text.
And perhaps yabbpack should now be known as smfpack?
Dan, the main reason is because the boardmod format doesn't have all the functionality required. It is, unfortunately, a little limited at this point.
Yeah, besides... anyone who has the minimal skill required to hand install a mod knows that they can just open up a YaBBPack in a text editor. It reads almost *exactly* like a mod file... All you have to do is find the breakpoints between files, which are clearly marked with a bunch of unreadable gobblety gook.
the format of yabbpak files [at least, when I worked on the package manager]: stuff in parathesis is just an explanation
file|^|(path to file)|^|(length of file)|^|(file last modified [seconds since epoch])(new line [\n])
(file)
this is all output in binary mode, so chance are, some of the characters are wierd
example:
file|^|Sources/Fakefile.php|^|30|^|12343212
Hi, this is 13 characters longfile|^|package.sql|^|24|12324321
INSERT name INTO member;
And I made a mod (later included in the 1.5.x) that made PackMan undterstand the BoardMod tags as well. The only problem is that sometimes BoardMod files did not give the proper path to the source files (I guess BoardMod would look for them... PackMan just assumed they were where you said). And the db modification files were not usually compatible without a bit of tweaking. The idea was that you could get a BoardMod package and could easily turn it into a YaBBPak.
Pacman extracts them exactly where the path tells it to, relative to the directory it was running it in.
So in the above examples, they would be put in:
/path/to/yabb/Sources/Fakefile.php
/path/to/yabb/package.sql
The Pacman would extract the files, add the mod to the installed list (so it could be uninstalled by my beautiful uninstaller ;) ), and then it would run the SQL file, which had to be in a certain place. Then it ran a PHP file. Then it parsed the .mod file and saved the backups (the ~ files), and actually did the modding. Then it showe the readme.
These all had to be put in a set place so the pacman knew where they were.
I was actually referring to the files to be modified. I had come across some BoardMod files that did not specify that the file to be modified was in the Sources directory... so PacMan could not find them. It should be made to look at forumroot, then Sources, to locate them rather than just choking. It also should be able to skip a file that it can't find (noting the error of course) rather than failing the whole install. This would make it easier to add the different languages for mods without fear that the installing party does not have that particular lang file... PacMan should just note the error and move on. As it sits now (with YaBB SE) it throws a crazy error and aborts. If these things have not yet been fixed in SMF, I suspect they will... assuming other provisions have not already been made to handle it differently ;) I've not had a chance to look at that.
Ok. From what I see (read acutally) Boardmod is not as robust as the package manager. Which makes sense as Boardmod was written for the perl board.
I do know a lot of folks prefer Boardmod. It is perceived as easier to use for one thing. And if you want to argue Boardmod eou vs. package manager eou with me prepare to be ignored. That's not the issue, the issue is how to enable board updates for the most people.
Secondly, there is also the perception that the package manager is a security risk. At one time it was and, as I'm sure you're aware, that's a hard concept to overcome. And there is always the concept that letting another website write to yours is never a good thing. Again, I"m not going to argue security issues with anyone.
I think you have basically two options, make the package mananger the prefered and (only) supported method of updating SMF or write your own boardmod and offer both. I would suggest dropping the names package mananger, yabbpack, etc. and call it 'SMF update', 'module loader' or something like that. A shiny new name for a shiny new board. :D
Anyway, that's my 2 cents.
btw, what would be your requirements for a new boardmod? And is there a listing for all the package manager tags, etc.?
All good points dan. I wasn't trying to argue :) I was just providing some things I had discovered/done. There are a few options that have been discussed... its still in the works.
Well, at YaBB 2, we are working with Boardmod to get a mod format that is compatible. We really want to be able to compress the data in mods, and we haven't quite been able to discuss this much recently, as everyone has been busy.
I *still* like my xml format better.... but that's because I like xml.
-[Unknown]
Problem is, not everyone knows XML, except if you make a mod builder for it (like YAME)
I have not taken a good look at the XML format that [Unknown] put together, but I can't imagein it being too much more difficult than the current <search></search><replace></replace> I mean it is still just tags... maybe they are nested now... but there are still just tags. It should look that foreign.
If BoardMod would just work it so that it does not require whole line search, everything would be fine. I was poking around in the source code this weekend and I thought it was a little messy how the search/replace/add does like 2 or 3 checks to see that the searched string is a complete line... I saw no need for that. But I did not have the time to fully investigate the logic behind it all. From a modding point of view it makes way more sense to not have to search and replace/add whole lines of code.
Boardmod is much harder for this community to edit and keep up to date because the majority of the people are PHP programmers. Most don't know anyother language.
Quote from: [Unknown] on August 13, 2003, 03:37:53 PM
I *still* like my xml format better.... but that's because I like xml.
-[Unknown]
I fully agree :)
Dan made a very good point, it isn't boardmod vs "some"pack manager it should be what will best suit users. Make it easy to apply mods and updates and what will provide good security.
Just out of interest, and please don't kill me because I admit I haven't read the entire thread, but what are the benefits of XML format?
Quote from: Shoeb Omar on August 16, 2003, 12:47:22 PM
Just out of interest, and please don't kill me because I admit I haven't read the entire thread, but what are the benefits of XML format?
Greater flexability, more organized mod files, ability to be easily parsed by already existing XML engines. Unknown knows more.
Quote from: David on August 16, 2003, 01:02:38 PM
Quote from: Shoeb Omar on August 16, 2003, 12:47:22 PM
Just out of interest, and please don't kill me because I admit I haven't read the entire thread, but what are the benefits of XML format?
Greater flexability, more organized mod files, ability to be easily parsed by already existing XML engines. Unknown knows more.
Not to be a******, but can you b a .little more specific? I mean, how would it offer greater flexibility, and why would it need to be parsed by xml engines?
Sorry, I am new to XML also :(
basically, XML is all lowercase, and you have to add a tag to it the .mod format :)
example
<?xml version="1.0">
<mod>
<author name="Matt Siemgna" />
<file name="sources/admin.php">
<modification>
<search>
//code
</search>
<replace>
//code
</replace>
</modification>
</file>
</mod>
There are two ways I want it to use xml... number 1 is...
<modification xmlns="http://www.yabbse.org/xml/modification">
<id>unknownbrackets:global_cookies</id>
<name>Global Cookies</name>
<version required="YaBB SE 1.5.1">1.0</version>
<author email="[email protected]">[Unknown]</email>
<information><![CDATA[
Allows use of cookies globally, across domains.
Example:
Your forum is at: http://forum.coolplace.me/
Your site is at: http://www.coolplace.me/
You will be able to access the cookie with Global Cookies enabled.]]></information>
<execute-sql><![CDATA[
INSERT IGNORE INTO {$db_prefix}settings
(variable, value)
VALUES ('globalCookies', '1')]]></execute-sql>
<file name="Sources/Subs.php" required-version="YaBB SE 1.5.1">
<search error="fatal">
<for-code><![CDATA[
function url_parts()
{
global $boardurl, $modSettings;
$cookie_dom = ''; $cookie_dir = '/';
if ($modSettings['localCookies'] == '1') {
$url .= $boardurl . "/";
$pos = strpos($url, '//');
if ($pos > 0 && strncmp(strtolower($url), 'http:', $pos) == 0) //Valid protocol
{
$urlpos = strpos($url, '/', $pos + 2);
if ($urlpos > 0)
{
$cookie_dom = substr($url, $pos + 2, $urlpos - $pos - 2);
$cookie_dir = substr($url, $urlpos);
}
}
}
return "$cookie_dom<yse_sep>$cookie_dir";
}]]></for-code>
<replace><![CDATA[// Sort out the parts of the URL for cookie purposes.
function url_parts()
{
global $boardurl, $modSettings;
// Is local cookies on?
if ($modSettings['localCookies'] == '1')
{
$url = $boardurl . '/';
$pos = strpos($url, '//');
// Check for a valid protocol... (http)
if ($pos !== false && strncmp(strtolower($url), 'http:', $pos) == 0)
{
$urlpos = strpos($url, '/', $pos + 2);
if ($urlpos !== false)
{
$cookie_dom = substr($url, $pos + 2, $urlpos - $pos - 2);
$cookie_dir = substr($url, $urlpos);
}
}
}
// Globalize cookies across domains?
elseif ($modSettings['globalCookies'] == '1')
{
preg_match('~http://(?:\w+\.)?(\w+\.\w+)(?:\z|/)~i', $boardurl, $parts);
$cookie_dom = '.' . $parts[1];
$cookie_dir = '/';
}
// Otherwise set some basic stuff.
if (!isset($cookie_dir))
{
$cookie_dom = '';
$cookie_dir = '/';
}
return $cookie_dom . '<yse_sep>' . $cookie_dir;
}]]></replace>
</search>
</file>
<file name="Sources/ModSettings.php" required-version="YaBB SE 1.5.1">
<search error="fatal">
<for-code><![CDATA[
</td>
<td class="windowbg2" bgcolor="' . $color['windowbg2'] . '">
<input type="checkbox" name="localCookiesChecked" value="1"' . $localCookiesChecked . ' />
</td>]]></for-code>
<where type="not" direction="below" error="fatal"><![CDATA[
</tr><tr>
<td valign="top" class="windowbg2" bgcolor="' . $color['windowbg2'] . '"><a href="javascript:reqWin(\'' . $scripturl . '?action=helpadmin;help=m_globalc\')" class="help"><img src="' . $imagesdir . '/helptopics.gif" border="0" alt="' . $txt[119] . '" /></a></td>
<td class="windowbg2" bgcolor="' . $color['windowbg2'] . '"><font size="2">' . $txt['globalCookies'] . '</font></td>
<td class="windowbg2" bgcolor="' . $color['windowbg2'] . '"><input type="checkbox" name="globalCookies" value="1"' . ($modSettings['globalCookies'] ? ' checked="checked"' : '') . ' /></td>]]></where>
<add direction="below"><![CDATA[
</tr><tr>
<td valign="top" class="windowbg2" bgcolor="' . $color['windowbg2'] . '"><a href="javascript:reqWin(\'' . $scripturl . '?action=helpadmin;help=m_globalc\')" class="help"><img src="' . $imagesdir . '/helptopics.gif" border="0" alt="' . $txt[119] . '" /></a></td>
<td class="windowbg2" bgcolor="' . $color['windowbg2'] . '"><font size="2">' . $txt['globalCookies'] . '</font></td>
<td class="windowbg2" bgcolor="' . $color['windowbg2'] . '"><input type="checkbox" name="globalCookies" value="1"' . ($modSettings['globalCookies'] ? ' checked="checked"' : '') . ' /></td>]]></add>
</search>
<search error="fatal" type="not">
<for-code><![CDATA[
'globalCookies' => 'globalCookies',]]></for-code>
</search>
<search error="fatal">
<for-code><![CDATA[
// let's do all the checkbox values....
$onoffArray = array(]]></for-code>
<add direction="below"><![CDATA[
'globalCookies' => 'globalCookies',]]></add>
</file>
<language-file name="Admin/Settings.english">
<add key="globalCookies"><![CDATA[Use subdomain independent cookies?<br />Warning: turn off Local Cookies!</add>
</language-file name="Admin/Help.english">
<add key="m_globalc"><![CDATA[
Allows for the use of subdomain independent cookies. For example, if...<br />
Your site is at http://www.yabbse.org/,<br />
And your forum is at http://forum.yabbse.org/,<br />
Using this modification will allow you to access the forum\'s cookie on your site.]]></add>
<language-file>
</modification>Which is all well and good, but we'd probably have to write a custom board mod... so...
The other one is server lists. I think I managed to convince everyone that was better. It's format would/will be something like:
http://unknown.network32.net/packages.xml (just in case you're wondering, http://unknown.network32.net/ uses that file.)
-[Unknown]
Unknown, I want YaBB 2 to have the same format as SE with the package managers. Is that the final version of you XML, or are you guys still working on it?
I think the main reason I'm not getting it's advantage is because I don't understand xml.... how does it work then? ;)
Quote from: mattsiegman on August 16, 2003, 02:54:47 PM
Unknown, I want YaBB 2 to have the same format as SE with the package managers. Is that the final version of you XML, or are you guys still working on it?
Working copy... we should talk.
Shoeb Omar, one of the benefits is grouping, multiple search statements, reverse search statements (meaning it *should not* be found.), and so forth.
-[Unknown]
To get back to the initial topic...
I, for one, would absolutely love it if there was a "supermod" version, or better yet --- just have it ready to go with all the mods already in there.
Being a Mac user, Boardmod does nothing for me :( *sniffle*... and installing all the mods for the desired look/effects on my board by hand took up a scary amount of time.
LOL - Just in time for my host to decide to support SQL, in which case, I switched to YaBBSE because it was much easier to install. Tried doing a couple of basic mods by hand, then saw the "supermod" and said... That's for me.
So I reinstalled with SuperModYaBBSE, and ahhhh.... How utterly relaxing that experience was in comparison! LOL!
If you guys hooked me up with a MegaSimpleMachine like that... not only would I love you forever and ever, I'd plunk down the $50 and be charterized. ;D
Oh - and if you do... can I make an early request for a zodiac mod to be included? ;)
:)
Using XML I think every mod can be done online, so something like Board Mod isn't even needed.
And if there will be a programm for that I think it would be great if it would be a Java programm because no porting to the diffrent OSes is needed or C++ would be also fine because porting is easy.
PS: The spell check doesn't know the word "online" :D
a YaME like editor, i think would be needed to make SMF packages much more easy to write :)
and, that xml format looks cool :)
Is there a mod team?
If there isn't there should be one. Being a programmer there is nothing I hate more then redoing something. Even if the team doesn't collaborate or work together cohesively there should be some sort of grouping so that everybody doesn't have to write the same code.
While on the subject, if there is a team/group I would be interested in joining said group/team. I do not have an over abundance of time, however I do have enough that I could dedicate a couple of hours a week/month to this.
Andrew
I haven't yet seen your code, but from you intelligent responses to.... every single thread you've posted in, I'm looking forward to it.
Yes, there is a team... some people are in the "Mod Developer" group, and you can see more information here: (about who's on it.)
http://www.simplemachines.org/team.php
I'd talk to Jack.R.Abbit and David about joining the Mod Developer team. It's no small matter either, because Mod Developer's get the betas, etc. just like Charter Members... so... and you'll have to be voted in.... can be quite an ordeal...
Anyhow, talk [to] the people I mentioned, and let's see what happens...
-[Unknown]
Thank you for the information [Unknown], I will have to look into doing that. Although if it is an ordeal maybe I will just catch some runoff.
Andrew
heheh, I'd like to joing too ^_^
actually.. my code is still far from professional so I guess I'll just free-lance modding when SMF is released puclic to try and increase my skills and eventually be actually good enough.
Of course from what I hear basically every mod will be listed somewhere in the modding forum etc, so making sure there is no similar mod before you start wouldn't be too much of a problem ^_^