Support Forums - XOOPS Web Application System

Subject:* <
Name/Email:* <
Message Icon:* <
Select* <
Message:* <	xx-Small x-Small Small Medium Large x-Large xx-Large Arial Courier Georgia Helvetica Impact Verdana Haettenschweiler Black Blue Brown Green Grey Orange Paper Purple Red White Yellow Click the Preview to see the content in action.
Options:* <	Enable Smiley Enable Xoops Code
Confirmation Code* <	7 - 3 = ? Input the result from the expression Maximum attempts you can try: 10
* <

module"). [/quote] I can understand it completely and it is really a good approach in xoops API which i support it. but core team dont explain other deprecations. eg: I cannot understand the below deprecations necessity. xoops_getModuleHandler to $xoops->getModuleHandler it needs an explanation because some people like Mamba should put their precious time and change all these functions in all xoops modules to make them compatible with the new 2.6 core. therefore core team should have a very good reason for that. Also i may disagree with the below deprecations until i can see a good reason from core team. for example this one: xoops_load to XoopsLoad::load and our widely used function: formatTimestamp to XoopsLocal::formatTimestamp I know it is quite easy to change the above methods in calling functions to calling Classes::Functions but i want to know what is wrong with a function like formatTimestamp that we have to change millions of them in the whole xoops modules? [quote] Soapbox is now working on XOOPS 2.6.0 Alpha 1. I plan to update it to the latest API later on, but as long as it delivers its functionality with no errors, what is wrong with it? Why should I discount it? [/quote] Soapbox is working fine in 2.6 thank you Mamba. I may work on newbb 4.3 to make it fully compatible with core 2.6 because IMO it is very good to have an enormous module working with the new core to find more issues in core and help core team to fix them. Edit: Mamba now i see a very new definition from you for modules and extensions: - modules are "end user applications" - extensions are "Webmaster/Admin applications" while i cannot see the above definition in the news i think it is unnecessary to have a new concept for admin only modules. just pay attention that we already have a plenty of modules that just have admin features and nobody have problems with them so with this new definitions we should turn them to extensions. i dont have time right now. i will write more in the near future. [/quote]" />