SMF module for XOOPS

[Chad]

Xoops 2.x on my site..
- I've looked at that spinx site but it's really plain looking so I haven't looked into it further.  I need a LOT of functionality on my site as you can see:
http://www.aviary.info
The users notice when something comes up missing and right now they're about to burn my house down if I don't get some better forum software than that newbb crap Xoops comes with.  Well the newbb version that's currently available anyway.

I really want SMF on my site but it doesn't look like that's going to happen any time soon.

[Kainaij]

My portal tastes have been evolving over the year and I now am convinced that Xoops is #1.

Tywick, now the pressure is really, really on.  I just got my e-mail from SMF telling me that SMF 1.0 Final is out, plus Xoops 2.0.9.1 was JUST released too.

NewBB2 is good, SMF is better.

[Thokk]

I don't code but if someone is working on making an XOOPS/SMF integration a reality I'd like to get involved somehow.  I have some QA experience in an un-related field, and have a user base that would probably be cooperative with any testing efforts that I threw at them.

[Robert Frost]

i don't know about you guys, but 1.0.1 is working quite stable for me.

If anyone makes a mod or something, i'd be glad to test it!

[albn]

I have used XOOPS and E-Xoops (now RunCMS), and noticed these systems run slowly when they get larger. Perhaps it was mah host and needed a dedicated host?

Oh well, the site has been gone for ages now, and am looking for a CMS that will integrate with these forums. 

[ep98]

I have used XOOPS and E-Xoops (now RunCMS), and noticed these systems run slowly when they get larger. Perhaps it was mah host and needed a dedicated host?

Oh well, the site has been gone for ages now, and am looking for a CMS that will integrate with these forums. 

Some explains, e-xoops and runcms, even and eX v2(www.exoops.de) are the same one thing, fork of XOOPS. RunCMS and e-xoops are one thing, both of them still exist, but no maintenance releases from their authors.

to Tywick:

What means stable version of SMF, is 1.0.2 not stable enough, XOOPS 2.0.9.2 with Protector 2.35 is the most stable of all CMS (GPLed, I allready tryd all of them). Or for you SMF 2.0.0SPx.x will be stable and XOOPS 3.0 ? I'm wondering what for you means stable ?
Kernel 2.6.11 is it stable enough ? and why not 2.4.22, or 2.0.38 ? There is no stable releases in the free software, everyone project few seconds after been released becomes unstable, cos someone tester, user or hacker have found a hole in the source, or in the deps libs, like PHP, MySQL, APache, there is no stable, for stable releases go to microsoft.com 

[LionHeart]

I see that this thread is over a year old.

In that time, has any programmer yet been found who can, and is willing, to make an integration bridge for XOOPs and SMF?

Very interested,
-Lion

[X-Ception]

Hi guys and gals,
i'm also a big fan of SMF and Xoops and have enquired here about "bridgeing" xoops to smf or vice versa and have got some good tips with how to do it but ive also recently been tracking a post on the xoops.org site
http://www.xoops.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=36045&viewmode=flat&order=ASC&start=0 

and to be honest some aspects of the post i felt quite insultive towards SMF :/ im a fan of xoops but i get the impression that they are really "force'ing" there newbb release ( or should i say urgeing ? ) upon there users

now personally i do wish to use xoops but since my discovery of SMF some time ago i cant have a site with forums .. without SMF

is there anyone with an inkering of how long this will take or the ball gets rolling etc .. as i feel xoops team share no interest in developing further upon this, just my opinion ofcourse

[[Unknown]]

To be frank, Mithrandir's posts there expose that he is not such a hot shot as he seems to believe:

There is no API (ways to plug into the code - like an engine's valves where pipes can be connected)

Not entirely true, and that hasn't stopped Mambo, has it?

there is no database abstraction layer

1. Why do they have to use XOOPS database abstraction layer?
2. Even if it used a class-based abstraction layer, it would still possibly need recoding if it used a DIFFERENT class (e.g. with different methods.)
3. Again, hasn't stopped Mambo.

all output is generated from scratch

Wrong.

and it uses a lot of eval() calls

Wrong.  And vBulletin uses a billion times as many.

Also note that eval() is more efficient that include() - not less, as he seems to believe - except on servers which have an accelerator installed.  You'll note that "eval(" appears in the SMF source code exactly two times (one in the upgrader.)  This is his definition of a lot?  And, the one time can be disabled (if you have an accelerator, you want this) - and is disabled here.

but I can't really go much further from there. I have no idea why it won't parse the {$boardurl} etc.

I sincerely hope he is not trying to interpolate a variable inside single quotes.  He probably isn't, but he's very vague here.

the API is non-existing

Silly me, I didn't realize that smf_api.php and SSI.php didn't exist.  Mind must be playing tricks on me.

If it took him two hours to come to such conclusions, he's clearly not at all interested in the bridging of SMF and XOOPS.  I'm not even interested in worrying about it, in that case - waste of my time as much as his.

Anyway, 1.1 enhances integration markedly, but it's still not going to be enough to get past people not willing to bother to actually care.

As for our, or at least my, position on this, it is simple:

There are a lot of people out there that can write a bit of PHP.  Many even, that can write it quite well - it is not as rare a talent as some try to make it out to be.  If enough people want XOOPS integration, one of those people will be someone who can write PHP quite well and the integration will be born.  I have other things to do, myself, which are frankly more important than trying to work with a snobbish know-it-all making false assumptions.  I've written in the integration enhancements to 1.1, and that's my part - Mambo was done by a third party, and there's no reason one of the developers on this team has to be the person to do it for XOOPS.

This is a UNIX-familiar philosophy, and not an uncommon one.  I want to concentrate on the forum software, and let other people concentrate on their things.  It's part of what open source is about.

-[Unknown]

[X-Ception]

Hi ya [Unknown]
well as you said learning a code such as PHP isn't hard, but being good at it is not exactly easy the likes of yourself here @ SMF ( as well as the other's who do put in a tremendous amount of work ) and the likes of Mithrandir @ Xoops.org, you guys are the "in the know people"

i guess what I'm trying to say is, many people take your word as final here, where as on xoops they take Mithrandir's words similar to your own over there...

Which in turn does no help for promotion of a bridge .. my original en query

i still do feel they had no right to discuss SMF publically in the way they did without what seems to be really installing it just a download and review nothing much in respect of inspection really done, but i can imagine it may put many xoops developers away from SMF ... generally these are the people ( obviously not always ) who release the dynamic functions, the intergrations and other such the standard user comes to reply on.

In saying that i can answear my own comments here by saying " well get your ass in gear make no excuses and learn to code " so there you go


anyhoot now that i have dribbled on for the last hmm 5 Min's or so, back to my original question, is this now a closed attempt or are there still some hopes of seeing this intergration/bridge develop further ?


p.s
none of the above was a "pop" or "go" at yourself [Unknown] i think your response was quite justified considering my xoops team "big ups" for a lack of a better word are quite low

[X-Ception]

O.K, After reviewing [UnKnown]'s post above, Saying anyone is able to do this. I figured i would at least research it in depth, my findings have lead me to only two seemingly worth while starting points.

1. Learn PHP from scratch, study SMF code and learn to plug it from scratch

This is great, but hey i work like most others and my site is my Passion/hobby - so this option is great... when i have time

2. Study whats available and learn what i need to learn as i go, obvious starting points, look at mambo bridge and the YaBB TDfX 2 bridges/plugins(?) and see how they work.

So after taking both on board i went for option 2, So now studying them both, i now find i need to study xoops too ( which was somehow a point i missed out ARGH! ) and now find myself "chasing my tail"

So my question is, how much diffrent is Yabb from SMF ? is it worth be looking at this factor or again will i be kicking myself in the ass trying to figure this out ( trying this stuff also has taught me that being a developper must REALLY do your heads in at times ! )

[X-Ception]

i also have been looking at how IPB/phpBB have been intergrated/bridged in there too.

The one thing that becomes very noticeable is that the ACP basically is best left not intergrated to an extent (?)

Also that the registration process is best coded into one system rather than trying to support both (?) i.e register via the xoops or SMF system not be able to use both.

Also theme templates are best left to there respected systems id assume, obviously it would be nice to include themeing to support both in one system but i guess this would cause more problems that it would actually fix (?)

also one thing i see come up a lot during my research is session usage, seems this is best intergrated to be similar or use one system for the session management (?)

and the last point that seems to be raised a lot is .. core changed, xoops are totally against core changes, as upgrades become hard to track ( although i do prefer when projects publish manual changes to be made where possible ( phpBB do this ) ... personal preference really.. ), I also get the impression although not quite "shunned upon" as much by the SMF team but the same principles apply, try avoid core changes as much as possible ! ..

sorry lots of questions with not a lot of input ... but if i got to get somewhere i need to know where I'm going first

[Grudge]

XCeption,

As [Unknown] said 1.1 will make integration *much* easier from SMF's point of view, but it should be relatively easy to add the *basics* of an integration - but only if one or the other system is starting from scratch (Otherwise you'll have a hard time using one set of members)

Personally, for an integration I'd disable registration from SMF, and meerly modify XOOPS to put an entry into the SMF members table as well as the XOOPS members table. (Sharing the same user_id). And just keep them sync'ed up for password changes and the like. You may also want to modify the login/logout routines of SMF to look for the XOOPS cookie and use that if it exists.

The alternative approach is to keep "syncing" the database. By this I mean when someone logs in to SMF, check their username and password (As per normal). If an entry doesn't exist then look at the XOOPS member table - and if it exists their copy it into the SMF member table. Same for passwords... if an entry exists in SMF but the password doesn't match, check the XOOPS table to see if the password has changed - if so update SMF with the new password.

Obviously there is more "gloss" around this with deleting members, changing passwords from SMF etc - but it's a start.

Grudge

[Kainaij]

Much discussion has been brewing regarding a bridge between these two great products at Xoops.org [nofollow]:

http://www.xoops.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=36045&viewmode=flat&order=ASC&start=0 [nofollow]

I am happy to announce that through a request by a member named "Pod" at BBpixel.com [nofollow], "Koudanshi" has agreed to develop a bridge:

http://forum.bbpixel.com/index.php?showtopic=2086 [nofollow]

I make a call here to all SMF members and staff who have been interested in this bridge to go to bbpixel.com [nofollow] and donate monetarily to this project.  It also may be beneficial for the SMF core team here to contact Koudanshi and co-operate in any way that he may need.

Koudishani has developed some wonderful bridges for both Mambo and Xoops, most notably the IPB/Xoops bridge now in wide use among Xoops users.

Great news for both the Xoops and SMF communities.  Hopefully after this both these core teams can work together more closely in making these two products more compatible.

[banned]

To be correct, Koudanshi's works aren't bridges but integrations.
He used to make a single userbase - and similar things - and then let you choose what you want to use with an option.

EG: With X-IPBM you can use the XOOPS registration system and the IPB profile's system or viceversa; You can choose to wrap xoops header and footer (and relative's blocks) or not when users are browsing the forums.

banned,

[jazz]

Is there any more talk on this integration?  I've been following the thread at http://forum.bbpixel.com/index.php?showtopic=2086, but the posts just stopped on 6/3.  Any new information on this?

[Orstio]

Personally, for an integration I'd disable registration from SMF, and meerly modify XOOPS to put an entry into the SMF members table as well as the XOOPS members table. (Sharing the same user_id). And just keep them sync'ed up for password changes and the like. You may also want to modify the login/logout routines of SMF to look for the XOOPS cookie and use that if it exists.

I'd have to take a look at Xoops' registration process, but I know with Mambo, I prefer to do it the other way.  SMF's registration is more secure and less prone to problems.

[Herman's Mixen]

if so then the communty bout xoops had to work around it i gues
if smf had to work smootley to it they could do it in no time for ya
just ask them for a bridge a like

[banned]

I think Koudanshi is waiting for the 2 major releases (SMF 1.1 and XOOPS 2.2) before start a full time work on this

[ping]

My web host just began offering XOOPS as an "easyapp." I'd never heard of it before, but the buzz has all been on the good side. I'm especially interested in the "light" aspect. I have installed several Postnuke sites, and there seems to be many aspects that I don't need but are all part of the core. I'm going to have to fiddle with XOOPS and see if I can get a handle on it. I dislike the thought of having to wait for the next full releases, though. I understand, but I'm impatient, dang it!

*realizes people are looking at her with worried expressions and starts backing away*