PHP 5 works quite a bit differently from PHP 4. I doubt the lines highlighted above have much to do with the problem. It would take some serious debugging to isolate the problem, so I would suggest contacting the module author directly.

--Julian

Quote:

I'm afraid that's the best approach. The fundamental issue I discovered was that two modules can't have the same named search function. So if you look in the xoops_version.php files for all the modules and see two search functions named the same, then that would be a problem, and tell you which modules have the problem.

But you may be getting the same or a similar error for a different reason, so I would recommend turning the modules off one by one to see which is causing the problem.

Good luck,

--Julian

I should mention that this script was written for WF-Channel 1.06.

--Julian

P.S. Seems I made too many edits to my original post, newbb2 won't let me edit it anymore! Can someone please turn off whatever setting is preventing me from editing my own post, people should always be able to edit their own words.

You can details about, and a download of, a Perl script that clones WF-Channel at the link below. WF-Channel is a good module for adding regular HTML pages to a site.

https://xoops.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=26041

--Julian

Depending on the copyright status of images and other things like tag lines and slogans, it can be necessary for anyone reselling an open source application to change all that stuff to their own versions. If you read the Red Hat Enterprise Linux license closely, you'll see that they specifically say that if you want to redistribute the open source software they have sold you, that you can do so, provided that you remove all the the Red Hat logos and copyrighted material (besides the code of course).

So depending on the business context of the open source application you're talking about, and the people doing the reselling, a certain amount of changes to "hide" the original creator might actually be appropriate.

In this case, I think it is certainly unethical if they infact represent their portal to be something they created whe in fact they did not. But the standard GPL license that XOOPS is licensed under doesn't prohibit anyone from doing exactly that I don't think. But I too would terminate discussions with them if they are dishonest this way.

Another point of view to keep in mind: many potential users of XOOPS, and clients of these people, could care less who made the software, what it's licensed as, or even what the cost is. If they are unable to install and manage the software themselves, then they would probably be very happy to pay a fee to have someone do it for them.

Although we as developers might want the business agreement to be specific about the fact that the charge is for customization and administration services, and not a "product price" since the software is free, the fact is that that's irrelevat to many clients. If they feel they're getting good value for their money, then they don't care what their money is actually paying for (product versus service). And I for one think that if they are in fact getting good value for the money, then thumbs up to those service providers.

Take it easy,

--Julian

Looks like a very stable release. But I've seen this kind before myself (twice -- well two at once), and my advice would be to be prepared for endless rounds of maintenance!

Congrats!

--Julian

Wow! There's lots of interest and ideas about documentation out there, that's great.

I totally second the idea that docs should be a requirement for a certified module.

And I totally second the idea that there should be a template for module docs so it gives developers a place to start, 'cause that's one of the hardest part of writing, figuring out how to organize what you're going to say. A standard framework would really help. I will have to check out the samples suggested here; maybe the Formulize docs I'm working on will follow that format as a test.

Lastly, I'll paste in a link here to a great article mentioned on Slashdot today, where one of the things the author says is that computer science students must be able to write clearly (he says in English 'cause he's in the US).

http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/CollegeAdvice.html

Quote:

"The difference between a tolerable programmer and a great programmer is not how many programming languages they know, and it's not whether they prefer Python or Java. It's whether they can communicate their ideas. By persuading other people, they get leverage. By writing clear comments and technical specs, they let other programmers understand their code, which means other programmers can use and work with their code instead of rewriting it. Absent this, their code is worthless. By writing clear technical documentation for end users, they allow people to figure out what their code is supposed to do, which is the only way those users can see the value in their code. There's a lot of wonderful, useful code buried on sourceforge somewhere that nobody uses because it was created by programmers who don't write very well (or don't write at all), and so nobody knows what they've done and their brilliant code languishes."

Similar things can be said about the relationship between end user docs and the popularity of a module with end users.

--Julian

P.S. I hope marcan or one of the other Quebecers will show up and say something witty about bill 101.

LOL! This is a funny thread.

I would agree, however, that documentation is lacking for many (most?) modules.

I would also say, though, that writing good documentation is just as hard as writing the modules, and few people have both sets of skills.

In the end, bad docs are probably better than no docs. And docs can't help but give your module a wider audience, which should be a motivation for some module devs.

As for the language, hey, write it in whatever you can, there are rudimentary translation engines on the 'net, and my unscientific opinion is that most people, at least outside the US, speak at least a bit of another language besides English.

For instance, here in Canada it's actually the law that we speak in English and then in French when talking in public. (Unless you're in Quebec, where bill 101 mandates that you have to talk in French first, and then you must use a quieter voice when talking in English.)



Thanks for reading, a bientot,

--Julian

Quote:

I should say, anyone who knows a bit of Perl can!

I didn't mean to imply that anyone should be able to do this, and if you can't, then there's something wrong. There is defintely a little specialized knowledge at work.

--Julian

So I take it you got it working?

Basically, download ActiveState Perl and install it on your windows machine.

Then put the WF-Channel files and the script in a new folder as described above.

Then run the script from the DOS box as described above.

And if you got the message saying the new module was ready, then you should be good to go.

Good luck,

--Julian

P.S. About how it works...it's actually a very, very simple script, as far as Perl scripts go. All it does is grab the command line arguments that you pass it (the new name you want for the module) and then does a whole bunch of find and replace operations on the files in the wf-channel module.

Perl is a programming language that is very well suited to text file manipulation (and was the scripting language of choice before PHP came along). Many still swear by Perl though, the programmer's "swiss army knife" it has been called.

The ActiveState program is simply the environment you need installed to make Perl work (on windows). The .pl script is just plain text and you need to have ActiveState in order for your computer to be able to read the file and know what to do.

It's kind of like how you need a web server with PHP installed for your PHP files to be read and interpreted correctly. Perl is a programming language just like PHP.