Author Topic: Portal for SMF 2.0 (Read 21233 times)

plexxity · « **on:** March 22, 2008, 11:23:26 PM »

Does anyone know of a portal that supports SMF 2.0?

tinyportal.net reports that they will not be supporting SMF 2.0 for a long time. the reason is unknown.. i was just wondering if there was another portal system that worked with smf 2.0

thanks

SA™ · « **Reply #1 on:** March 23, 2008, 12:50:58 AM »

nope i belive not even mk portal aint relesing one till smf comes out of beta

xyxis_fahim · « **Reply #2 on:** March 23, 2008, 01:01:15 AM »

too early for request I say

Dragooon · « **Reply #3 on:** March 23, 2008, 01:10:44 AM »

The reason for TP not support SMF 2 is due to SMF 2 being unstable and TP 1's devolepment.

Rumbaar · « **Reply #4 on:** March 25, 2008, 07:50:04 PM »

Yeah SMF 2.0 is in the BETA stage, and not even in a RC stage. So major project will be waiting until the core coding has been done before committing time to update their projects.

I doubt you'll find any bridge/portal software compatible with SMF 2.0 yet.

vdubbia · « **Reply #5 on:** March 25, 2008, 08:32:46 PM »

why wasn't a portal front end part of the 2.0 project? Seems like a pretty popular feature and I'd imagine it would have been easier to code along with the forum vs. after?

Not a criticism, just asking.

Rumbaar · « **Reply #6 on:** March 25, 2008, 08:42:10 PM »

Well I can't speak on behalf of the team, but for me I see SMF as a forum software. Pure and simple. With a portal system, while a good addon, would make it a CMS and not the core drive of SMF.

weightman · « **Reply #7 on:** March 25, 2008, 08:43:30 PM »

I understand its too early but it would be nice to have the ability to choose an install package based on what major add-ons you want like SimplePortal, or TP or Orstio's Mambo Bridge (would have to include Mambo of course), maybe the Wordpress bridge (haven't used it), etc and maybe have those options in the web installer. This seems like it would leverage existing hooks, ease installation immensely, and encourage development in those hooks making SMF even more untouchable. I get the feeling joomla and phpbb are going in this direction?

Kindred · « **Reply #8 on:** March 25, 2008, 08:50:18 PM »

simplePortal and TinyPortal are mods... they are not part of the SMF distributed codebase and are not supported by the SMF team. (Bloc does TinnyPortal on his own, not as an SMF team member)

the bridges designed by orstio do not modify the SMF source at all, and are actually add-ons to the CMS, not to SMF.

The wordpress bridge is not stable, from what I have heard and, again is not designed nor supported by the SMF team.

So, there is nothing to distribute as a web install with any of those.

rsw686 · « **Reply #9 on:** March 25, 2008, 08:50:40 PM »

Quote from: Rumbaar on March 25, 2008, 07:50:04 PM

I doubt you'll find any bridge/portal software compatible with SMF 2.0 yet.

Coppermine gallery is compatible with SMF 2.0 out of the box. Also my MediaWiki bridge is compatible with SMF 2.0. If you have a few minutes of time you can find/replace the fields in SMF 1.1 FlashChat bridge and make it 2.0 compatible.

Although none of these require theme / source code changes to SMF. Things like tiny portal require massive amounts of coding to the theme and database queries that will all have to be reworked. With the next SMF 2.0 beta templates having a more semantic html layout you would have to make the theme changes twice.

Croco · « **Reply #10 on:** March 25, 2008, 08:54:11 PM »

i have TinyPortal ready to use om smf2

but i can't share the files because it is against some rules

Dragooon · « **Reply #11 on:** March 25, 2008, 09:50:03 PM »

OK Just to answer rsw86, TP 1 requires NO theme change except a forum button(Which will be removed to in SMF 2 version).

weightman · « **Reply #12 on:** March 26, 2008, 12:30:45 AM »

Quote

simplePortal and TinyPortal are mods... they are not part of the SMF distributed codebase and are not supported by the SMF team. (Bloc does TinnyPortal on his own, not as an SMF team member)

the bridges designed by orstio do not modify the SMF source at all, and are actually add-ons to the CMS, not to SMF.

Okay, I guess I can see if bloc doesn't want TP distributed that way, or any of the others. But, I am not sure I follow you. Doesn't SMF already distribute SimplePortal and the bridge through this site? So, all I am really talking about is packaging it up together in some way to make it easier to install. SMF could still let the support for the mods/bridges/cms continue unchanged.

Thanks for explaining. Just curious.

Dragooon · « **Reply #13 on:** March 26, 2008, 02:30:50 AM »

SimplePortal is distributed by its author through this site, Simplemachines doesn't distribute them or hold there liability.

As far as bridges are concerned, I am sure Orstio will be doing something.

Kindred · « **Reply #14 on:** March 26, 2008, 08:56:42 AM »

Quote from: weightman on March 26, 2008, 12:30:45 AM

Okay, I guess I can see if bloc doesn't want TP distributed that way, or any of the others. But, I am not sure I follow you. Doesn't SMF already distribute SimplePortal and the bridge through this site? So, all I am really talking about is packaging it up together in some way to make it easier to install. SMF could still let the support for the mods/bridges/cms continue unchanged.

Thanks for explaining. Just curious.

SimplePortal is a mod, made (and supported) by a mod author. It is not supported by the SMF team...

SMF is a forum. If others want to make mods that add non-forum functionality (simplePortal, TinyPortal, Downloads, Arcade, gallery, etc) then we validate those mod packages and make them available. However, do not be confused into thinking that those are "official add-ons" to the SMF core. All mods are essentially 3rd party additions.

As for the bridges... once again, the bridges are components that get installed into the CMS and the official bridges make no changes to the SMF core. So, distributing them with the SMF basic install would serve no purpose what so ever.

weightman · « **Reply #15 on:** March 26, 2008, 10:17:11 AM »

Quote

However, do not be confused into thinking that those are "official add-ons" to the SMF core. All mods are essentially 3rd party additions.

I was not confused.

Quote

As for the bridges... once again, the bridges are components that get installed into the CMS and the official bridges make no changes to the SMF core. So, distributing them with the SMF basic install would serve no purpose what so ever.

Well, I guess I get your point- you are a purist. I understand because I am the same way about my sport. But, is seems to me if you could install SMF, Mambo, and the bridge (or SP or TP) in one package somehow, then it would be easier. That would serve a purpose in my mind, but maybe there is no way to package all three/four in one install? Doesn't seem you are saying its not possible to make it easier to install, but rather that you don't want it to be installed together....

No worries.

6aro · « **Reply #16 on:** March 26, 2008, 11:21:49 AM »

Simple! If you have a portal on your forum, don't install yet SMF2. I have a TP on my forum and I'm waiting for stable version of SMF 2 and new TPortal for this version of SMF.

Kindred · « **Reply #17 on:** March 26, 2008, 12:29:49 PM »

weightman..

doing what you just mentioned would require us to be re-distributing the CMS... not a task that we want to take on. We have enough to worry about to make sure that SMF is up-to-date .

And I guess I don't see any problem.
1- install SMF
2- install your desired CMS
3- install the bridge using the standard CMS installer.

I really don't see how that could be made any easier.
and if you are complaining that #3 is too complicated... then the admin has some serious issues, since not understanding how to do #3 means that the admin would not be able to install ANY additional components.

weightman · « **Reply #18 on:** March 26, 2008, 01:23:14 PM »

Quote

doing what you just mentioned would require us to be re-distributing the CMS... not a task that we want to take on. We have enough to worry about to make sure that SMF is up-to-date .

Understood.

Quote

and if you are complaining that #3 is too complicated... then the admin has some serious issues, since not understanding how to do #3 means that the admin would not be able to install ANY additional components.

Well, I am not really complaining just trying to give constructive feedback.

But, there is a little more to the bridge install then what you describe, determining which mambots are published, certain settings in SMF admin panel have to be a certain way, certain settings in mambo config panel must be a certain way, etc, etc. I've gotten pretty good at it, but I wouldn't mind streamlining it more.

TheWrath! · « **Reply #19 on:** March 26, 2008, 01:38:45 PM »

ETA on SMF 2.0 Beta to become SMF 2.0 RC 1?

News:

Author Topic: Portal for SMF 2.0 (Read 21233 times)