1
teibaz
Re: Xoops 2.2.5
  • 2007/2/22 18:28

  • teibaz

  • Not too shy to talk

  • Posts: 103

  • Since: 2004/6/13


i believe it's safe enought, i'm using 2.2.x myself. i have made several changes, but all-in-all it works perfect



2
teibaz
Re: Protecting directories
  • 2007/2/20 19:54

  • teibaz

  • Not too shy to talk

  • Posts: 103

  • Since: 2004/6/13


Yeah, create .htaccess file as it was mentions before OR create empty index.php file in that directory



3
teibaz
Re: Xoops RC3
  • 2007/2/20 19:50

  • teibaz

  • Not too shy to talk

  • Posts: 103

  • Since: 2004/6/13


Quote:

davidl2 wrote:
I have no idea what you mean by XOOPS RC3?

The latest release is 2.0.16.2


i believe its XOOPS 2.0.16 (without ".2" at the end)

and from 2.2.x - XOOPS 2.2.5 RC2



4
teibaz
Planning/designing module. How do you do that?
  • 2007/2/20 18:23

  • teibaz

  • Not too shy to talk

  • Posts: 103

  • Since: 2004/6/13


Hi,
i'm interested in module design (designing, planning or as you say). How do you start modules? I'm on the progress in new module creation, so i can say share my experience So at first i tried to write all different parts in CMS. When i had parts, i detailed them. I write all methods (with input/output) and classes and thought about file structure. After that, i programmed all these parts. Now, when i have my cms with working parts i re-look all parts, added more functionality and started to thought about site layout and blocks. After that i found some mistakes in my cms part and added even more to it.

What did you do? Do you design ALL parts at once? Do you think about all or a half module? Do you just think, but do not mark and start to develop it? What? :) I would like to hear some thoughts about that.



5
teibaz
Re: XOOPS for high traffic site?
  • 2007/2/16 7:44

  • teibaz

  • Not too shy to talk

  • Posts: 103

  • Since: 2004/6/13


if average is 63126, then it goes fine :) (Just looked stats)



6
teibaz
Re: Demo user creation
  • 2007/2/14 13:20

  • teibaz

  • Not too shy to talk

  • Posts: 103

  • Since: 2004/6/13


Quote:

onasre wrote:
would all agree this Shoud be a new request for new XOOPS update


No
if you want to have some kind of demo user, you have to hack all your modules that they would fit your needs. If you hack modules - you will not be able to update them easily. So - if it is such need i believe that this should be done by yourself, but not by XOOPS core developers.

If you JUST want a demo, use this: http://demo.opensourcecms.com/xoops/

Username - admin
Password - demo



7
teibaz
Re: How can I Add Functions into a module?
  • 2007/2/14 13:14

  • teibaz

  • Not too shy to talk

  • Posts: 103

  • Since: 2004/6/13


You can hack any XOOPS module or even XOOPS as well



8
teibaz
Re: DB: maybe we need to change config table field properties
  • 2007/2/13 22:47

  • teibaz

  • Not too shy to talk

  • Posts: 103

  • Since: 2004/6/13


So can we expect this change in new XOOPS version?



9
teibaz
Re: DB: maybe we need to change config table field properties
  • 2007/2/12 10:17

  • teibaz

  • Not too shy to talk

  • Posts: 103

  • Since: 2004/6/13


Quote:

vaughan wrote:
personally i think fields like that should be 'text' attribute. it's better for indexing and searching..


What? As i can understand data storage in mysql, best performance in this case would be to use CHAR (bigger files, but better performance) (if db table is MyISAM type). How many rows we could have in config table? Several hundreds? Even if we have several thousands still it would be better to use char (if we do not care about some additional kilobytes in mysql). But this place isn't worth that we discuss it :) it's too small, it's just a question of greater length.



10
teibaz
DB: maybe we need to change 'config' table field properties
  • 2007/2/11 19:04

  • teibaz

  • Not too shy to talk

  • Posts: 103

  • Since: 2004/6/13


Now 'config' table has some mysteries. Here is an example of some fields from this table:
conf_name - varchar(25)
conf_title - varchar(30)
conf_desc - varchar(50)

Could anyone explain why these three fields should have different length? I believe, that conf_title and conf_name should be also varchar(50) as conf_desc. For example:

if i would like to name config, like this:
_MI_DISCOGRAPHY_CONFIGS_UPLOADS_DIR_TITLE

I explain this constant:
_MI - module information
_DISCOGRAPHY - module name
_CONFIGS - separator from other constants, that this one will be used in configs
_UPLOADS_DIR - config name. This config defines title of uploads directory
_TITLE - define that this constant is title (not description)

43 chars! And I couln't understand why I should shorten it to _MI_DISCOGRAPHY_C_UPLOADS_1_T...

This is only one example. Maybe someone should recheck all properties in all tables and fields?

But maybe there is an explanation for these lengths?




TopTop
(1) 2 3 4 ... 8 »



Login

Who's Online

71 user(s) are online (39 user(s) are browsing Support Forums)


Members: 0


Guests: 71


more...

Donat-O-Meter

Stats
Goal: $100.00
Due Date: Jul 31
Gross Amount: $0.00
Net Balance: $0.00
Left to go: $100.00
Make donations with PayPal!

Latest GitHub Commits