21
Tandy
Re: Latest AMS: Block positioning question
  • 2005/3/24 3:15

  • Tandy

  • Not too shy to talk

  • Posts: 110

  • Since: 2003/8/11


Trip, the display stuff is fixed, as regards visible blocks.

Merde, I have been at this stuff since 6am. I need a Wolf:ET session. Some pixels have to die.



22
Tandy
Re: Latest AMS: Block positioning question
  • 2005/3/24 2:59

  • Tandy

  • Not too shy to talk

  • Posts: 110

  • Since: 2003/8/11


I am aware, as are the IBDeeming guys. Seems they are working on a fix.



23
Tandy
Re: Latest AMS: Block positioning question
  • 2005/3/24 2:55

  • Tandy

  • Not too shy to talk

  • Posts: 110

  • Since: 2003/8/11


Want me to setup an admin ID so you can take a look in the backend?

Now remember: You break it and I break you...



24
Tandy
Re: Latest AMS: Block positioning question
  • 2005/3/24 2:51

  • Tandy

  • Not too shy to talk

  • Posts: 110

  • Since: 2003/8/11


You are not wrong: it's the theme. Shoot. Back to the drawing board.

I suck at theme hacking. I redefine the word "suck". Guess I have to find another theme.

On edit: That is one classy looking theme too. Just nailed our needs, without going for the big guns: Goran.

Anyone seen that boy lately? He's impossible to get in touch with, and I have another client interested in his work. In fact, perhaps 3 clients.



25
Tandy
Re: Latest AMS: Block positioning question
  • 2005/3/24 2:46

  • Tandy

  • Not too shy to talk

  • Posts: 110

  • Since: 2003/8/11


http://worldnewstrust.org

It's the exrg theme.



26
Tandy
Latest AMS: Block positioning question
  • 2005/3/24 2:11

  • Tandy

  • Not too shy to talk

  • Posts: 110

  • Since: 2003/8/11


I am setting up a news site for a .org and have chosen, for the time being, to use the latest AMS as the news handling module. The AMS page is also set to be the default start page. The thing is that, for the life of me, I cannot get the damn thing to display the "ladder" of news stories under the other blocks. It wants to keep the stories above them, which really messes with my idea of how these things are supposed to look.

Anyone willing to slap a little sense into me? I am sure I have been working at this website admin stuff for far too long today, on far too many sites and I am experiencing cerebral vapor lock.



27
Tandy
Easier User Group Addition
  • 2005/3/23 12:59

  • Tandy

  • Not too shy to talk

  • Posts: 110

  • Since: 2003/8/11


The addition of new user groups tends to put the new user group at the bottom of the group hierarchy. This makes adding new groups a lot harder, especially when you want to add a group with enhanced access.

Is there any possibility of getting a groups module with the additional functionality to weight the groups within the hierarchy? This, I believe, would make adding new groups a easier, by orders of magnitude, especially as regards the way those groups are displayed and acted upon with some of the modules that use the pull-down group access field.



28
Tandy
Re: Do I have to be concerned about this?
  • 2005/3/21 14:55

  • Tandy

  • Not too shy to talk

  • Posts: 110

  • Since: 2003/8/11


Gotcha. Ok, that is helpful information. It appears that XOOPS does not rely on that for any fundimental function.



29
Tandy
User Group Mnanagement Question.
  • 2005/3/21 13:59

  • Tandy

  • Not too shy to talk

  • Posts: 110

  • Since: 2003/8/11


Is there a module out there that eases the process of adding new user groups, especially as regards the hierarchal position of them? Here is my problem:

I am building a rather ambitious news-oriented website for a .org. The head of the .org has identified a need for more than the three default access groups, to facilitate editors and author's submissions. Some modules grant access based upon position in the hierarchy of groups, using that pull-down highlighting thingy. I have found that this makes a lot more work in adding new groups and access rights. Does anyone have a more effective solution, perhaps with a weighting feature?

Thanks.



30
Tandy
Do I have to be concerned about this?
  • 2005/3/21 13:47

  • Tandy

  • Not too shy to talk

  • Posts: 110

  • Since: 2003/8/11


Quote:
We apologize for any inconvenience we may have caused. We were initially hasty when we
announced that allow_url_fopen would be turned off immediately as many of your websites
(many more than we had anticipated) rely on it for their functionality . The security issue for
our servers is still severe and we will still be turning off the allow_url_fopen option soon, but
anyone who is currently relying on it will have some time to make the necessary code changes.
This will be your only announcement regarding this and you must make any necessary code
changes before the deadline.

The deadline for any PHP code changes is March 29, 2005. We will be turning off the
allow_url_fopen option shortly after that date.


I have a number of websites on Dreamhost, who issued this statement. Is this going to morph into a major pain in the ass for me, as all sites on Dreamhost are XOOPS sites?

Shoot. Of course they are all XOOPS sites.




TopTop
« 1 2 (3) 4 5 6 7 »



Login

Who's Online

91 user(s) are online (67 user(s) are browsing Support Forums)


Members: 0


Guests: 91


more...

Donat-O-Meter

Stats
Goal: $100.00
Due Date: Apr 30
Gross Amount: $0.00
Net Balance: $0.00
Left to go: $100.00
Make donations with PayPal!

Latest GitHub Commits