1
i mention this in the following thread:
xfguestbook.
i changed my XOOPS table name prefix (from xoops_ to ...) just today using the gijoe newest
protector module.
then i experienced a problem in upgrading a module as mentioned above, is it the consequence of changing the XOOPS table prefix name (that i will always have a issue when upgrading a module)? is this concern valid?
thanks.
EDITED:
sorry, mith apparently has responded in the previous post:
Quote:
You shouldn't. No module developer should ever rely on a fixed prefix - that's the whole idea of having it in the first place.
