From experience, I can tell you to not bother trying to install any of the hacks floating around. None that I found work, or won't work on the version of XOOPS you want to use.

The answer is in XOOPS itself which contains the code to make cookies work correctly. It was commented out in one of the updates because of a potential security risk.

You need to find the thread here that describes exactly for you where in each file you need to un-comment the code. It is only a few places.

I did this about six months ago and it has worked perfectly ever since. If you want to log on to www.bloggerforum.com and then check out the cookies it will set on you computer for you, feel free. I wish I could tell you exactly where it is, but I have forgotten. This will be a bugger if I install the final release of 2.0.6 since I'll have to go in and un-comment again.

I have the same problem, if it makes you feel any better.

On one install, it was 404 errors. I got it working, had to reinstall for other reasons. Now, I just get a blank screen. info.php runs without a problem. Just can't figure it out.

Quote:

Mmm... I think you put your finger on the problem. It's a combination of trying to run 2.0.5 and 2.0.6 on two servers while going back and forth and trying to remember what modules were originally called when I have renamed some modules so they make sense to users. For example, sections in one of my sites was renamed to "Articles" so people would know what they're clicking on.

Anyway, I didn't mean to start a flame fest.

Let's just take it as my original post should have "Sections" not "WFSections" and that although there is a world of difference between Sections and WF-Sections, there may not be significant difference between WF and XF or Patriots or Panthers, whatever. At this point I have spent 3 hours today trying to get XF to work with XOOPS search. So, I think someone could probably spend a month trying to do an accurate comparison of these modules. Let's just say that my attempt is way less than accurate.

If I remember correctly, the author of XF-Section said he named it XF so it wouldn't be mistaken for an upgrade to WF-Section. I think that's what he said in a readme or maybe on the download site (so I take it to mean it has no meaning other than to differentiate it). Catzwolf says it's a "fork" of his WF-Section. The two modules are quite different, as anyone can see. For example, XF has 117k of files in it's root while WF has 15k of files in it's module root directory. XF has 122k of files in it's admin folder while WF has 17k.

I don't know who did what to whom. I just know these are totally different programs and that XF has a world more of features. I'm not saying it's better, more reliable, or anything else. It's different.

OK, I really have to go back to what Catzwolf said:

"XF-Sections is WF-Section with bugfixes and nothing more. So how can you say that one has one thing but the other doesn't?"

I'm trying to compare apples to apples here. If you run XF-Sections 1.04 together with the WF-Setions (as it comes in the XOOPS 2.0.6 RC) you can quickly see these are entirely different programs.

I invite anyone to run both these modules side-by-side to see what I mean. Does WF-Sections allow bulk import of HTML files and changing directory paths for files? Does it have a control panel with a configuration page with 41 config option including scrolling in blocks and control over the number of scrolling lines and even scrolling block delay? Does it have separate blocks for most recent articles, top articles, section downloads, big articles, etc.? I could go on for pages.

I'll stand by what I originally said in the first post that compared these two modules. Again, anyone is free to install it and report back.

So, in hunting around for a while it seems that you can find xfsection, xfsections, and XF-Sections. Further, that XF-Sections 1.04 is a temp bug-fix version of WF-Sections that was called XF-Sections so it wouldn't be confused as an upgrade to WF-Sections and that when 2.0 is released, it will go back to be called WF-Sections. Is this correct?

Don't know why I am confused, it all makes perfect sense.

"XF-Sections is WF-Section with bugfixes and nothing more. So how can you say that one has one thing but the other doesn't?"

Yes, excuse me for getting xfsections, wfsection, and wfchannels confused. The fact is, it is a bit confusing.

I'm just going by notes I jotted down while trying to run all of these at the same time and still keep track of which blocks were generated by which modules.

You probably didn't find it because I called it xfsections when it's actually xfsection.

You can get it here:http://linux2.ohwada.net/modules/mydownloads/singlefile.php?cid=1&lid=1

I've spent hours trying to decide what would be the best module to handle articles on my site. At a minimum, the module would have to easily wrap HTML and be XOOPS searchable. I installed and compared the latest versions of Cjay Content; Tiny Content; iContent; Free Content; WFSections; XFSections (1.04); and WFChannel. This is what I found (the "Power" rating is subjective on my part):

CJContent:
Power: Medium
Printing: No
Commenting: No
Has a good control panel. Uses a block with links and a main menu entry. You can add headlines to separate links in the block by putting ".." before the headline.

Tiny Content:
Power: Medium
Printing: Yes
Commenting: Yes
Also allows an "email to friend" notice of articles. You can choose one topic as your Main Menu heading.

Free Content:
Power: Low
Printing: No
Commenting: No
Handles blocks and a Main Menu entry.

iContent:
Power: High
Printing: Yes
Commenting: Yes
Has many admin panel options. You can tracks page hits, create shortcuts to pages, rate pages, create directories.

Sections: (Edit: originally called WFSections by mistake)
Power: Medium
Printing: Yes
Commenting: No
Creates graphics for section links. This is a core module.

WFChannel:
Power: Medium
Printing: No
Commenting: Yes
Has a few installed pages ready to modify, like "Link to Us" and "Privacy Statement."

XFSections 1.04
Power: High
Printing: Yes
Commenting: Yes
Does email notice of page, separate block can be enabled for most recent, today's most read and top articles. Can create several other blocks with articles information. Has the most powerful admin panel. You can even change the directory paths where HTML, graphics and other sources are kept. This is an important feature for me.

Anyway, these are some of my impressions of these modules and I hope it saves other folks some time in deciding which is best for them.

If you're not using FP 2003, they did improve the code bloat somewhat.

I use FrontPage and Dreamweaver for html editing. Either works fine. I just pick and choose the code I want to pull into XOOPS templates. I don't ever just cut and paste whatever FP generates.