326 Reply by MattF

(6 replies, posted in Feature requests)

Extensions should be where all additions such as those are kept. That doesn't mean to say that I don't think some of those things don't have a use, however. I was merely pointing out that one persons idea of what is essential is very narrow. It applies personally rather than globally in most cases. To try and steer development in that direction is a fallacy, however.

The extensions will grow as the 1.3* base grows and matures. Plus, the extension system allows for those types of addition to be incorporated in a more consistent fashion than before, making inhouse design slightly simpler.

The point was not intended to be argumentative, but merely to point out that the base ought to remain as is, i.e: small and to the point. The extension system itself lends itself to any ulterior requirements, without having to guide development that way. smile Plus, Informer are a company, so I would assume that certain niche extensions might be negotiated for a fee. big_smile

Go to forum: Feature requests

327 Reply by MattF

(16 replies, posted in PunBB 1.2 troubleshooting)

AlexanderS wrote:

I'm never going to change the base url in the database before administration/options. It still seems like that had something to do with it.

That didn't cause it in any way or form. It is quite safe to do it that way. Those files were altered by someone or something else.

Glad to hear you're back up and running. smile

Go to forum: PunBB 1.2 troubleshooting

328 Reply by MattF

(16 replies, posted in PunBB 1.2 troubleshooting)

If you have a standard setup, i.e: not modded, then that approach would be fine. Just upload the new files, (after backing up your existing forum dir), and copy the config file and your modified templates and styles across. No need to reinstall the db.

Go to forum: PunBB 1.2 troubleshooting

329 Reply by MattF

(16 replies, posted in PunBB 1.2 troubleshooting)

Just double checked on a fresh 1.2* download, and that first line in your code above should be:

<li<?php if ($page == 'index') echo ' class="isactive"'; ?>><a href="admin_index.php">Index</a></li>

Check against a virgin download and see which files you need to alter and how. If all of your files have hardcoded paths, and you have quite a few mods installed, you're going to have to use the likes of sed on *nix or some search and replace utility for M$ if you wish to avoid altering them all by hand.

Go to forum: PunBB 1.2 troubleshooting

330 Reply by MattF

(16 replies, posted in PunBB 1.2 troubleshooting)

Those files have been altered then. That relative path is completely wrong. I'd need to double check a virgin admin file to say 100% certainly, but this part:

../../../oldurl/myforum

should not be there. It should be using the pun_root constant which is defined at the top of the file, rather than being hardcoded like that snippet you posted above.

Go to forum: PunBB 1.2 troubleshooting

331 Reply by MattF

(84 replies, posted in PunBB 1.2 modifications, plugins and integrations)

Instructions regarding how to do what?

Go to forum: PunBB 1.2 modifications, plugins and integrations

332 Reply by MattF

(16 replies, posted in PunBB 1.2 troubleshooting)

AlexanderS wrote:

If change the base url in the database and clear the cache folder it does not change the base url in any of the files. It remains the same (the old base url).

In any of which files? The base URI is dynamic, as such. The only place where it is cached is in the config cache file. Every other file obtains the base URI from there. If it has not changed, the config cache has not been deleted or regenerated.

Go to forum: PunBB 1.2 troubleshooting

333 Reply by MattF

(6 replies, posted in Feature requests)

michaeld wrote:

Forums are increasingly becoming a commodity, with many similar options. While many small and amateur sites will always want a pure forum system, a simple forum has minimal business use. Businesses need to track specific communications and problems with customers.  So as you plan future versions or plugins, you might consider directing PunBB into more of a social networking, CRM, or issue tracking direction.

I think there is strong business needs for issue tracking.

What you class as a business necessity does not apply to all. A bulletin board is not intended to be a C.M.S or a bug/issue tracker. Why consider evolving the base into something that is for a certain niche requirement? The company themselves should design their own system around the core, or hire someone to do that work, unless an extension already exists to fulfil that need.

Also, saying that a bulletin board has minimal business use is just plain false.

Go to forum: Feature requests

334 Reply by MattF

(16 replies, posted in PunBB 1.2 troubleshooting)

AlexanderS wrote:

Changing the base URL in the database is not enough, you must first change the base url in administration/options to apply the information to all files.

The only difference that altering through the admin panel makes is that the cache files are regenerated upon the values being submitted. Delete the cache files once you have corrected the base URI in the database, and exactly the same outcome is achieved.

Go to forum: PunBB 1.2 troubleshooting

335 Reply by MattF

(6 replies, posted in PunBB 1.2 discussion)

Anatoly, how will you, (you meaning yourselves and your employers), decide when you deem it necessary to phase out 1.2* support?

Go to forum: PunBB 1.2 discussion

336 Reply by MattF

(3 replies, posted in PunBB 1.3 troubleshooting)

Router/bridge/firewall port mapping.

Go to forum: PunBB 1.3 troubleshooting

337 Reply by MattF

(16 replies, posted in Discussions)

I can see how extension contributors might find the pay-per-install, (to give it a loose term), nice, (and it would be an incentive for their work), and the system would probably be well accepted in general, but still...

Go to forum: Discussions

338 Reply by MattF

(16 replies, posted in Discussions)

hcgtv wrote:

but Extensions will cost money

That should say 'official extensions'. smile They can't charge for extensions created by members.

Go to forum: Discussions

339 Reply by MattF

(3 replies, posted in Feature requests)

Better to stay as is, IMHO. It is recognisable and familiar. Enough has changed already.

Go to forum: Feature requests

340 Reply by MattF

(6 replies, posted in PunBB 1.2 discussion)

Anatoly wrote:

I think PunBB 1.2 will be supported while it is required by users. My estimation is about year.

I think that may be a tad of optimism on your part. smile What happens after that period? Will support be dropped after a year, if you deem it's no longer worthwhile?

Go to forum: PunBB 1.2 discussion

341 Reply by MattF

(39 replies, posted in PunBB 1.2 discussion)

Funny, I don't remember indicating I considered all differences of opinions to be attacks nor do I remember referencing "MattF" in my generic comment about attacks in forums.

Doth thou protest too much, perhaps?

Nope. You made a generic comment. I gave a generic reply. smile

Go to forum: PunBB 1.2 discussion

342 Reply by MattF

(22 replies, posted in PunBB 1.3 extensions)

British Broadcat Company's

British Broadcasting Corporation. smile

Go to forum: PunBB 1.3 extensions

343 Reply by MattF

(39 replies, posted in PunBB 1.2 discussion)

MikeSchinkel wrote:

It is indeed nice when someone on a forum writes that they appreciate someone else's involvement as more often then not people use forums to attack others they don't know.

It's called having a personal opinion. Or is only one persons opinion allowed?

Go to forum: PunBB 1.2 discussion

344 Reply by MattF

(3 replies, posted in Discussions)

grudon66 wrote:

Punbb sux, go to fluxbb.org

And the reasoning behind that completely stupid personal statement would be?

Neither *suck*. They are two choices and nothing more. If you do not personally like Pun, then the obvious choice would be to shut up, stop being childish and not frequent the Pun forum anymore, do you not think?


Edited: Corrected a spelling mistake.

Go to forum: Discussions

345 Reply by MattF

(9 replies, posted in Feature requests)

Bugger. Crappy memory moment again. I intended to suggest earlier, (and became sidetracked), that possibly the XML-RPC setup would be more suitable to the task of doing this?

http://www.xmlrpc.com/

It would be more in keeping with the general flow, unless there is a specific reason for using e-mail based systems? Unless I've overlapped some of the info I've remembered from the past, (wouldn't be the first time), this type of system is used in some blogging software for the same type of scenario.

Go to forum: Feature requests

346 Reply by MattF

(9 replies, posted in Feature requests)

brian_j_murrell wrote:

I'd say for the most part the MTA does more work that Mailman does.

Quite true. The MTA is the primary workhorse. One simple fact however is that every *nix system under the sun comes with a MTA installed as default, (as far as I know), as part of the base system. The same is not true of list software. Take Mailman, for example. Whilst requiring the installation of the list software itself, you also have its Python dependency, and most likely some other dependencies. Especially for someone who is inexperienced with system admin, adding that level of necessity to what should be a simple mod/extension is pretty absurd.

I can see the point you're making, and do in part empathise with your point, but it is still a lot of unnecessary software. The forum has all of the verification info it needs. Why replicate, or have to create an auth lookup in an external system, when the forum itself can decide which user addresses are valid without external influence? It is outside the scope of a notable percentage of people who setup a forum to setup a list server too.

Message parsing would be the one area that would be a bind. big_smile

Go to forum: Feature requests

347 Reply by MattF

(9 replies, posted in Feature requests)

brian_j_murrell wrote:

Indeed, it would have to be done with the same kind of controls that most mailing lists use currently like confirmed subscriber post only, etc.  Most mailing lists today survive without the deluge of spam you are fearing.

I don't fear. It's a simple fact. Those mailing lists do have the deluge. They merely have the correct restrictions in place to make sure it never reaches the lists themselves, most of the time.


brian_j_murrell wrote:

Indeed, it would probably be smart to leverage the most popular MLM out there, Mailman, and simply gateway the forum into/out of that.

Not exactly what you would call a light method. If the forum is dealing with the posts and their replies, the forum should deal with the processing. The main MTA's can easily enough have a pipe transport set up to forward the message to the relevant forum script for further processing. List software should be a choice, not a prerequisite.


brian_j_murrell wrote:

Maybe.  How do you figure bridge is the right term and gateway is not?

It's a gateway to the forum, but you are bridging different functionalities. If you prefer gateway, call it a gateway. It matters not to I.

Go to forum: Feature requests

348 Reply by MattF

(2 replies, posted in PunBB 1.2 troubleshooting)

Assuming 1.2*, in the extra links section of the admin panel or directly in include/functions.php.

Go to forum: PunBB 1.2 troubleshooting

349 Reply by MattF

(9 replies, posted in Feature requests)

You'd need to be extra vigilant to details with this type of mod. If done incorrectly, it would be opening a forum up to spam with a vengeance.

Edit: The correct term is a bridge, btw, not gateway. smile

Go to forum: Feature requests

350 Reply by MattF

(16 replies, posted in PunBB 1.3 troubleshooting)

Do you have the feed bookmarked in your browser/feed client?

Go to forum: PunBB 1.3 troubleshooting