You are not logged in. Please login or register.
PunBB Forums → Posts by MattF
the folders are within the same URL,,,,
Still want be possible?
base_uri/folder1 and base_uri/folder2 are completely different base uri's, as far as the o_base_url setup is concerned.
Yup. You can definitely get rid of that head/body info. Pop this code into a file, (for example: include/user/player.php), as is:
<?php
if (!$pun_user['is_guest'])
{
?>
<script type="text/javascript" src="http://www.example.com/forum/swfobject.js"></script>
<div id="player">Loading MP3 Player</div>
<script type="text/javascript">
var so = new SWFObject('http://www.example.com/forum/mod_mediaplayer.swf','mpl','600','75','8');
so.addParam('allowscriptaccess','always');
so.addParam('allowfullscreen','true');
so.addVariable('height','75');
so.addVariable('width','600');
so.addVariable('file','http://www.example.com/forum/mp3/upload/statistics.xml');
so.addVariable('backcolor','0x009900');
so.addVariable('frontcolor','0xFFFF00');
so.addVariable('lightcolor','0x999999');
so.addVariable('displaywidth','140');
so.addVariable('showstop','true');
so.addVariable('showdownload','true');
so.write('player');
</script>
<?php
}
?>and then put that filename in the include inplace of the old filename. That should then only display once logged in. 
Just wondered if I might ask a small favour? I've got this script on test now, and things appear to be functioning as expected, (thanks again Smartys), but just wondered, if I popped the code up, if someone might be willing to give it a quick once over and double check that I haven't made any schoolboy type mistakes? 
If its appearing within a PunBB page then, you can get rid of all that head and body code:
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 TRANSITIONAL//EN">
<html>
<head>
<title>mp3 player</title>
</head>
<body> </body>
</html>That will be throwing the html validity out of the window as it is.
At the very top of that file add:
<?php
if (!$pun_user['is_guest'])
{
?>and at the very bottom of that file add:
<?php
}
?>Can't say whether you'll need to change the extension back to .php or not. Would think you will though. Is that opening up in a separate page of it's own, btw?
Alter the o_base_url config option in the db, (via whatever db admin interface you use), back to the correct base uri.
Seriously, forget about trying to work out why they're binning stuff. It'll drive you to distraction and you'll never get any further forward with it. The likes of AOL/Hotmail/Yahoo have been taking the mick for years with their filtering rules and requirements. Look at any of the MTA mailing-list archives, and you'll see that even the most impeccable MTA setups have suffered rejections or just disappearing mail for no valid reason, where those sites are concerned.
As Smartys mentioned however, make sure your PTR record and everything else are fine first. If after that you're still suffering the problem, it'll most likely ne'er improve no matter what you do.
I'd personally suggest the best PHP resource is the PHP website, for most specifics: http://php.net
That site, and people on here, (and I have had some dumb moments for them to contend with), have been the two most useful resources, in my book.
I'd seriously suggest just learning one language at a time, however, rather than trying to learn all three, that you've listed above, at once. I've never touched or looked at Ruby, but with regards to perl, unless you have a specific reason for needing to learn that language, I'd honestly give that one a miss.
That's the route I've gone down too. Just a few little tweaks and checks to make, and then it should hopefully be ready for testing.
What's in the include file? Can you enclose that within php code tags, if not so already?
Without seeing some code, it's pretty hard to suggest anything.
Possibly, but taking away a mans smilies would just be mean. Besides, you do have the option of enabling/disabling smilies, if you wish.
Can't you also replace the online/offline text in the langfile with an <img tag, as another method?
Yes. You could also just have the equivalent of disp_position
So that I could order them to suit?
Could I just ask one last question? If I had something along the lines of the following:
<input type="text" name="alternates['.$cur_uri['id'].']"would that, when I extract the _POST['alternates'] array, give me keys in the array which match those original id's, or would the keys in the post array be sequential?
Thanks once again.
You can't use code in the tpl files directly.
Ah. The question then would be: file or image gallery?
Where the player is added, or the link generated, enclose it within:
if (!$pun_user['is_guest'])
{
[player code]
}Obviously, however, that method depends upon your code.
Edit: If you're still unsure, just post the code from the included file.
Just been having a look. That method will work with hardly any alteration on the actual download script.
The admin script will be slightly more work. That one works roughly along the same lines as the admin_forums script, (which it's derived from). If I create an id column in that new table, (along with the download_uri and download_id columns), with an incrementing count, that will also allow me to keep them in order of how they were entered, (and hence their priority), when looping through them, if I actually create the entries in order of preference too, will it not?
Cheers. I understand now. I was having one of my slow moments again there.
Thanks again.
tek the me program oploder in sait me ?
sory i spec inglesh no gud
Apologies for asking, as I know English is not your main language, but I cannot quite understand what you mean. Any chance of a slightly more understandable question? Do you have a link to a site or such to show what type of thing you are wanting?
Cheers. With the db side of things not being my strongpoint, what exactly would be the method for doing that? Am I correct in thinking that means to create a duplicate entry in the table with regards to the download name and such, but with just the download URI being distinctly separate in each one? i.e: use the same method as creating a completely new entry into the table, so that it's technically an exact copy of the primary entry but with just that one difference of the URI? (Apologies if this seems like another of my completely dense mode questions).
Cheers Smartys.
Been trying to figure out for a few days which may the best way to approach this one, but still unsure, so thought I would ask for advice.
Have a script with an input field for a single URI, at the moment. Wanting to add the possibility of adding extra URI's so that if the primary or any of the other URI's listed for that item are not available, the lot of them can be looped through until one is found which is available.
Hence the question. Would I be best extending the size of that single column in the db, and entering all the URI's into that single field, suitably separated by a comma or such, or would I be better placed giving each URI it's own separate field, so to speak, and keeping them completely separate?
Cheers,
Matt
the files you are soo offensive about is actually buyed by my friend ... and he just gave me copy of that not to use it in vb (i dont use vb either) ... but to help my forum in seo ...
No one is offended or being offensive about them. Pure and simple fact. Distributing those files in any way or form, unless you are the author/copyright owner, is illegal. One can get hold of those files in only one way legitimately, and that is by paying the license/purchase? fee.
now, in repply to several posts in this topic... saying that content is the best SEO doesn't contribute with anything to this discussion, SEO is about getting the maximum out of a website content, not about touching the content itself. There's nothing wrong with SEO.
You misunderstood the intended meaning, methinks. If the content is worth a jot, then it will be indexed and catalogued. It was never said that it was the absolute, merely that it was the main and most important factor, as it is and always will be. You can optimise URI's until the day you die, but if your content isn't worth a jot, no end of base system alterations will make any noticeable difference. Content always should be, (and is), the primary concern. No more, no less. Anything after that fact is, as in the reference, an optimisation and nothing more.
Also, another common mistake repeated a few times in here: having 100.000 indexed pages doesn't mean a website is SEF, at all. It's no use to have many indexed pages if they don't get visited anyway. I prefer to have 50 indexed pages but geting on the top of google for each page keywords.
For the SEF discussion, I will just drop back to good old fashioned stubborness and annoyance. I really do see no point in humouring a system that prefers using filesystem semantics and rules for non-filesystem originating indexes. Plus, and this is just from my limited knowledge from the bit of time I have looked into SEF/SEO, (so may be incorrect in part), but literally having to break a http server by rewriting a 404? request for something which is not technically unfound, but has been broken specifically just to create search engine friendly URI's is, in my book, begging for problems, and a totally incorrect use of the error handlers primary and legitimate function. That's not to say it doesn't work, but it's an annoyance in the same manner as html e-mails are. They are, (in my personal opinion), outright abuses of a legitimate system.
PunBB Forums → Posts by MattF
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.