Search options (Page 41 of 307)

The page wouldn't be in the database unless you put the code in a hook (like the one in misc.php) rather than a separate file. If you were to do that, you would call it however you would call a normal page. If not, you would have to give the full URL to the file. The idea, as I said, is to keep the extension code and core code separate.

I should note that this type of release isn't something we're going to promote in 1.3. Instead, people should write an extension and put the file within that.

I hope not, since the English language packs aren't even done.

It's not an extension and should not be treated as such. If you want to release it as an extension, you need to package it up with a proper manifest.xml

Changing the code shouldn't take more than 5 minutes or so.

So? Opt-in isn't a bad thing

Well, until I make a facebook extensions and want to use fb as well. Extension IDs are meant to be unique, which is why they should be used. Long variable names? Yes. I would much rather have people writing/copy-pasting long variable names than posting lots of "Why do these extensions not work together?" and "Why does doing this break PunBB" posts.

Would you rather use $pun_extension[<ext_id>][stuff]? That was the original plan

Also, add the index for all database systems?

http://www.punres.org/viewtopic.php?id=1545
This code does the right thing in a very insecure manner (which means don't use it as it is).

Yes. Will be. That means in the future, not right now. Now be patient.

Yes. We know. This isn't the first time it has been pointed out. We're considering ways to improve how characters are dealt with without compromising the usefulness of the titles for languages other than English. If you have any suggestions other then "fix it now!!!" I'd love to hear them.

Mpok: That's not a measure of how the extension system slows things down though: you would want to measure PunBB pages both with hooks being used and without hooks being used.
SuperMAG: Those benchmarks mean very little. The scripts were .002 seconds slower. And you slowed them down using extensions that may or may not be efficient in the first place. And you didn't compare that to a 1.2 install of similar modifications. And how did you arrive at those final page generation times?