Author Topic: SMF Dev Blog #42: The Blog About Life, The Universe And Everything (Read 248370 times)

babjusi · « **Reply #40 on:** July 26, 2009, 10:18:55 AM »

Quote from: rommul on July 24, 2009, 10:22:07 PM

Quote from: Kenny01 on July 24, 2009, 06:07:48 PM
That's a bad news. I don't like doing large upgrade.

is not gonna happen this year so you have time to prepare yourself

Well, if the devs say that RC 2 will come this summer, then I think it will. At least I hope so, although I might say that I am a bit sceptic as well.

GravuTrad · « **Reply #41 on:** July 26, 2009, 05:58:25 PM »

only one dev has said he would like lol...

Özgür · « **Reply #42 on:** July 26, 2009, 06:08:28 PM »

Who said? We don't have too many devs, i think if oly one said that, devs must be think about same thing

GravuTrad · « **Reply #43 on:** July 26, 2009, 06:33:50 PM »

only one brain for four persons lol...

Arantor · « **Reply #44 on:** July 26, 2009, 07:44:37 PM »

There are 3 official developers on SMF at present.

The relevant quote however is not so much 'he would like' but...

Quote from: Aäron on July 02, 2009, 04:30:24 PM

I know most of you are eager to know when RC2 will be released. Unfortunately, I cannot say. Personally however, I am counting on a release this summer.

I'm looking forward to seeing RC2 - as I know everyone else is. Perhaps we should now stop spamming this thread and let them get on it!

GravuTrad · « **Reply #45 on:** July 26, 2009, 07:49:00 PM »

Quote from: Arantor on July 26, 2009, 07:44:37 PM

There are 3 official developers on SMF at present.

you forgot the big master chief: compuart...lol..

Arantor · « **Reply #46 on:** July 26, 2009, 07:50:07 PM »

D'oh! He's not in the developers list I linked to! (Sorry CompuArt!)

gonemental · « **Reply #47 on:** July 27, 2009, 05:40:59 AM »

i don't get it.

why they have hardcoded so much stuff in the templates thus making each template
a mess of incompatibilities, patches, and bugs ?

wouldn't it be much better and linear to process the variables in the core files
and just use the template for display ?

(sort of poorman's MVC architecture, but it works fine in many other CMS)

Arantor · « **Reply #48 on:** July 27, 2009, 07:00:55 AM »

Actually if you look at the template file it mostly is that. The reason it is hardcoded the way it is is for performance, if you strip it totally the way you're suggesting it will run slower, and in fact be less customisable.

Dragooon · « **Reply #49 on:** July 27, 2009, 08:57:30 AM »

Quote from: gonemental on July 27, 2009, 05:40:59 AM

i don't get it.

why they have hardcoded so much stuff in the templates thus making each template
a mess of incompatibilities, patches, and bugs ?

wouldn't it be much better and linear to process the variables in the core files
and just use the template for display ?

(sort of poorman's MVC architecture, but it works fine in many other CMS)

Thats what is done? There isn't any processing done in templates, they only render the data.

gonemental · « **Reply #50 on:** July 27, 2009, 09:58:29 AM »

well it may be faster but to me it still looks like a big mess.

on the other side, i agree a "micro kernel" approach with hundreds of small php includes would bog down the server.

CarpeDiem · « **Reply #51 on:** July 27, 2009, 12:19:56 PM »

My question in Reply 37, Question 3, about adding an alternative script was answered with:

"That probably has to do with the server configuration. The webinstall script retrieves a file from our servers; if your server disallows this, the script cannot be used."

but that didn't speak to my question, which again, was:

"...what about an alternate script being made for those of us who cannot ever seem to get traditional webinstall to download files? This alternate script (perhaps called something like insiteinstall.php) might depend on the files being uploaded by us with our own ftp program (perhaps the original downloaded zip) and then the insiteinstall.php could tuck all the files into their right places as needed (this bypasses the upload problem and it might work as an alternative for those few of us who seem to have webhost upload issues, if that's why we have problems)."

The virtue of the insiteinstall.php would be NO upload, just a manipulation of files into the correct folders, which would ease the burden of adm's in upgrades and installs both. Again, this would only be used by those who cannot seem, for whatever reason, to get the standard webinstall script to work BECAUSE it is trying to upload files over the web.

Again, the insiteinstall.php idea is that WE upload with our ftp program ALL the files, which we can already do successfully, and this would include the zip and the insiteinstall script.

Again, I bring this up here instead of in a separate webinstall thread to speak to the remark that Daydreamer made in Reply 32 that "Smf 2.0 RC2 need large upgrade, I'm afraid.", and scripts are intended to help ease that burden for us adm's I believe, and doing a multiple of upgrades on a multiple of forums is quite a burden for us.

So, how about an alternative that has US doing the uploading of the zip (instead of a script) and the insiteinstasll script doing just the placing of files into the right locations after WE upload the zip file ourselves.

I hope I'm making it clear that in this scenario this "special edition" install script does NOT upload anything (I know I've said it many times in this post).

Aaron · « **Reply #52 on:** July 27, 2009, 12:23:11 PM »

Ah, I don't know why I missed that part of your post.

Thanks for the feedback. Having the webinstall script detect existing archives in the same directory on the webserver sounds like a good addition to me, too. I can't make any promises though, but I'll add it to the tracker.

HecKel · « **Reply #53 on:** July 28, 2009, 07:27:57 AM »

Quote from: [Daydreamer] on July 26, 2009, 06:08:28 PM

Who said? We don't have too many devs, i think if oly one said that, devs must be think about same thing

Things can get delayed..., last year one of the mods said that "if SMF 2.0 final won't be released until the end of the year, I will consider that the project failled" or something like that (I don't want to do a search, but you can try to find that

) And that was one year ago..., things can get delayed and one NON official "I hope" shouldn't be seen as an OFFICIAL statment.

Just wait, that's the best you can do now.

searchgr · « **Reply #54 on:** July 28, 2009, 12:39:01 PM »

I was waiting for almost 1 1/2 years. No i don't. Whatever....

gonemental · « **Reply #55 on:** July 28, 2009, 04:22:49 PM »

yes SMF may be delayed but what you expect as long as you don't pay a single dime for it ?

if you're really on the cheap why not considering using a nulled copy of VB or IPB instead of whining here ?

SMF is just 3 guys with a script they develop in their spare time, take it or leave it.

i'm with SMF 1.10 and works fine, no need so far to switch to this mythical 2.0, i've installed
on a test server locally and can't see what the fuss is all about, for what i need is almost the same
as SMF 1.xx

Akyhne · « **Reply #56 on:** July 28, 2009, 04:59:51 PM »

Quote from: gonemental on July 28, 2009, 04:22:49 PM

SMF is just 3 guys with a script they develop in their spare time, take it or leave it.

Currently we are "only" ~40 people... not 3.

Akyhne · « **Reply #57 on:** July 28, 2009, 05:41:12 PM »

Quote from: Akyhne on July 28, 2009, 04:59:51 PM

Quote from: gonemental on July 28, 2009, 04:22:49 PM
SMF is just 3 guys with a script they develop in their spare time, take it or leave it.
Currently we are "only" ~40 people... not 3.

OOps, forgot our 200 hardworking translators.

Kenny01 · « **Reply #58 on:** July 28, 2009, 05:47:10 PM »

We talking of SMF developpers and not team members.

Akyhne · « **Reply #59 on:** July 28, 2009, 06:05:47 PM »

So? You think there's only 3 people working on SMF? More or less every team member is involved in one way or the other.

News:

Author Topic: SMF Dev Blog #42: The Blog About Life, The Universe And Everything (Read 248370 times)

babjusi