XOOPS 
Forum
Forum Index General Forums Community Support Modules Support Themes Support Development International Support Module Hack Reviews Theme Designer Talk


« 1 ... 4 5 6 (7) 8 9 10 »


61
metropolis
Re: Hijacked Shoutbox

  • 2006/7/25 21:37

  • metropolis

  • Not too shy to talk

  • Posts: 159

  • Since: 2004/7/15


Could you explain what you mean with "hijacking" your shoutbox? You mean somebody writes shouts into it? It's the purpose of a shoutbox I think...
Topic | Forum


62
metropolis
Re: [XOOPS] Designing a default module pack for Xoops Core

  • 2006/7/25 21:34

  • metropolis

  • Not too shy to talk

  • Posts: 159

  • Since: 2004/7/15


I can understand, this might be difficult to handle, but to my mind, the core developers MUST take care of some default modules as well.

The core itself is isolated and useless without modules. It may be fantastically designed and programmed but if 'nobody' uses it, it is a waste of time and effort.

I would like to emphasize that XOOPS needs both sides - good programmers AND users. Since there are too many other CMS on the market, I don't think XOOPS can afford to concentrate only on a sophisticated core and don't care about the applications. And I am not very convinced with the way it is now, where there are hundreds of modules. Some well maintained, some maintained sometimes and dozens just existing since XOOPS 1 and spread across (at least) ten different sites/repositories.
Topic | Forum


63
metropolis
Re: Forum Confusion?

  • 2006/7/25 8:24

  • metropolis

  • Not too shy to talk

  • Posts: 159

  • Since: 2004/7/15


Well, I can understand devnet's opinion here.

Newbb2 really looks better with all the dropdown menus. The "thread vote" is more 'graphical' (showing the options with a different number of stars) whereas CBB only shows simple text.

Also, as an admin, I liked all the possible functions when hovering over the author of a post. I saw his IP address making it easier to block some idiots away.

I currently use NewBB2 one of my sites, CBB on the other. But NewBB2 has never shown any errors and I don't really see the point, why using CBB should be better as I can hardly recognize any new functions in CBB that NewBB2 doesn't have.

Oh: @CBB-Devs: Why can't you rename your module folder to "cbb"?

And can anybody explain, what the "Digest mode" in CBB is?
Topic | Forum


64
metropolis
Re: [XOOPS] Designing a default module pack for Xoops Core

  • 2006/7/25 8:10

  • metropolis

  • Not too shy to talk

  • Posts: 159

  • Since: 2004/7/15


Quote:

1) Do we have to include module along with the core files, or do we create XOOPS module packs?


I always liked the included modules along with the core files. All other CMS/Portals I know do at least come with a basic set of modules.

But I wouldn't focus too much on this point, I could also live with extra module packs as long as they are easy to find and not hidden deep within the structure of this website.

This - btw should also be the way language files should be offered.

Quote:

2) What kind of module and which module would you suggest to include?

More or less what was in the previous 2.0-releases:
- News
- Links
- Downloads
- Polls
- FAQs
- Forum

and additionally
- a real content module where you add content, since this is a CMS. The old sections module is not very handy for that.
- Shoutbox
- Guestbook
Topic | Forum


65
metropolis
Re: Block positioning

  • 2006/7/24 8:40

  • metropolis

  • Not too shy to talk

  • Posts: 159

  • Since: 2004/7/15


Quote:

Xman04 wrote:
right-center, right, etc.) In other words, the weights applied to center blocks will only position those blocks relative to other center blocks, and the weights for left-center or right-center blocks only apply to those particular sections. The actual sections seem to be positioned according to the way the theme.html file is coded. I'm not sure if I'm 100 percent right about this, but that is how it seems to be.

Yes, you are right.

If you take a look into the (default) theme.html you can see that (for the bottom blocks) there is first a loop within ALL center blocks (meaning all center blocks will be printed according to there weight) and after that the left and right centerblocks will be printed out according to their weight.

If it should work the way you (and me, and probably all) would like, there has to be an outer loop for all center blocks that loops over all center blocks' block-weight.

From a programming point of you, that should work, but I have no idea about the XOOPS internals and whether there is such a general weight variable to loop over.
Topic | Forum


66
metropolis
Re: Please post modules that you know DON'T WORK in Xoops 2.2.2

  • 2005/8/25 8:00

  • metropolis

  • Not too shy to talk

  • Posts: 159

  • Since: 2004/7/15


I can't understand, why it is so difficult to set up an "official" list of modules that do work and those that don't work. There are tons of different threads dealing with the same things.

Module: WF-Links: recent links do not appear in block on main page.
Topic | Forum


67
metropolis
Re: xoops gallery

  • 2005/8/18 8:38

  • metropolis

  • Not too shy to talk

  • Posts: 159

  • Since: 2004/7/15


Try MyAlbum-P (available athttp://www.peak.ne.jp/xoops/ ). It just needs GD, though it can be improved with NetPBM or ImageMagick.
Topic | Forum


68
metropolis
Re: Xoops new version-too complicated?

  • 2005/8/16 9:57

  • metropolis

  • Not too shy to talk

  • Posts: 159

  • Since: 2004/7/15


Quote:

New installation support with pre-installed modules and then you can check which modules can be seen with registered users and which not..

Then install XOOPS 2.0.13 - it's exactly what you want!
Topic | Forum


69
metropolis
Re: Xoops new version-too complicated?

  • 2005/8/15 15:25

  • metropolis

  • Not too shy to talk

  • Posts: 159

  • Since: 2004/7/15


Quote:

We as a community must be patient and give these people time to do their work... Work that they are not even being paid to do. Let's be grateful, not greedy.

Sorry, but there are some things distracting me.

It was the XOOPS team that published a roadmap saying even version numbers are stable versions supposed to work on production systems, odd numbers are development versions to bs used only on experimental systems. Such as the Linux kernel versioning.

I would expect a version 2.2 being a) stable and b) usable on production sites. If the current XOOPS is not capable of the things, the XOOPS team itself defined, why releasing it as a self-proclaimed "stable" version? Nobody would argue if they had released it as 2.1. But it was the XOOPS core team itself who marked it as usable on production sites - I hope, they will learn something from this discussion. It's not a good thing to publish something as stable because everyone wants them to publish it as stable. It simply frustrates new XOOPS users and some of the old ones (such as me), to have a naked XOOPS without anything but (hopefully) some fantastic hidden features that I cannot use.
Topic | Forum


70
metropolis
Re: Xoops new version-too complicated?

  • 2005/8/15 15:14

  • metropolis

  • Not too shy to talk

  • Posts: 159

  • Since: 2004/7/15


Quote:

davidl2 wrote:
In the very near future - there will be module packs released

Please define In the very near future, as I have read this many times for many weeks and nothing has happened yet.
Topic | Forum



TopTop
« 1 ... 4 5 6 (7) 8 9 10 »



[Advanced Search]

Login

Register now!  |  Lost Password?

Search

Advanced Search

Recent Posts

Who's Online

217 user(s) are online (162 user(s) are browsing Support Forums)

Members: 0

Guests: 217

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