Re: SMF bridge
  • 2005/5/30 1:39

  • LionHeart

  • Just popping in

  • Posts: 70

  • Since: 2005/5/14

Hi X-ception,


not to sound tetchy, but has or is anyone actually developping an SMF bridge of any kind, Seems this post has drifted into an NewBB promotion subject :|. Although newBB/CBB is not by any means a bad product, its just not everyone's personal choice.

I'm not going to knock anyone's hard work that they've done on whatever forum module they are partial to, I'm sure that each developer has his or her own excellent reasons for liking whatever package they're working on.

But you're right, there's a lot of choices of out there and it's a shame to be limited to very narrow selection. IPB is not palatable to me because it requires hacking core XOOPs files, which can render it inoperable when the next XOOPs or IPB update comes along. Let the XOOPs folks do what they do best, and the dedicated forum folks do what they do best, all I hope for is a bridge so that the packages work nicely together.

I'm willing to pay for a developer to write this bridge, and from the look of things, there are other people who might contribute also. Does any developer want to take up the challenge, and if so, how much would it cost to have such a product, a XOOPS<>SMF Bridge, to be produced? Or, if someone writes this as a commercial product, I would be willing to buy a copy if the price was reasonable.


Re: SMF bridge
  • 2005/5/30 8:26

  • Kainaij

  • Quite a regular

  • Posts: 256

  • Since: 2004/10/5

You are correct in saying the topic drifted from its original intent. I too would be willing to "pitch in" monetarily for a bridge to SMF. Even tho I have contacted phppp to assist in development if CBB, I don't see it as as a conflict of interest in assisting both (CBB with design and SMF Bridge with money).

Might I suggest that you wait out coding until access to 2.2 code is available to bridge to? Everything can get started except coding. Kinda what phpp and CBB are waiting for too.

Re: SMF bridge
  • 2005/5/31 18:54

  • Oldiesmann

  • Just popping in

  • Posts: 4

  • Since: 2005/5/27

I would be willing to donate some money towards the project as well. I am currently busy working on integrating Gallery 2 with SMF (and it's coming along quite nicely), but would love to help out with a XOOPS/SMF bridge as well. I spent some time the other day playing around with XOOPS at Opensourcecms.com and think it has a ton of great features that many SMF members would love. So why are so many developers against working with SMF to come up with a bridge?

SMF bridge - ETA 1 Month
  • 2005/6/1 2:22

  • pod

  • Quite a regular

  • Posts: 301

  • Since: 2003/4/19

Koudanshi has agreed to take on this project & estimates it done within a month.

Everyone interested in this port would do well to visit BBPixel.com & express their interest, or contribute monetarily, either way.
Letting developers know their hard work is appreciated goes a long way to getting things accomplished, IMO.


Re: SMF bridge - ETA 1 Month
  • 2005/8/13 10:54

  • finnerss

  • Just popping in

  • Posts: 21

  • Since: 2003/1/8 2

Really hope and will contribute in any way for this bridge, just let me say a couple of things that I found in this thread and they're really disappointing.

I've made a home out of XOOPS since version 1, I have loved the way it has evolved into the great CMS it is now with 2.2.1, So I think that my loyalty and devotion to XOOPS it's proven over the years.

Yet what I find disappointing is that I see someone like Mithrandir who is a Core Developer, someone who should be showing the way also with attitude as a leader which I consider he should be for such projects, and yet what I'm seeing in each post is this :

"Xoops is great, XOOPS is the best, there is nothing that you will ever need besides Xoops" I'm afraid I don't agree.

Xoops is a great portal system : Yes.
Might be the best portal system : Definitely.
Has everything that you can offer in the internet : Far from it. There's no "all in one system just yet"

If we were to learn instead of questioning of everything that is good and apply it to our works, then maybe we could find an all in one solution, but I'm really sorry to say that Mithrandir sounds, with all due respect and hoping he can take this professionally, not too open to new ideas... To explain : Definitely not open to look into what's behind this

There is a simple fact, maybe so simple that Mithrandir's complex genius mind fails to grasp : It is not one, or two users who would want to see a marriage between XOOPS and SMF... I have seen posts in the SMF site, as well as in here... and in some PHP forums for that matter.

This is simple : People want it. there's demand behind this request.

What I think the main problem is is that Mithrandir and some developers want to see SMF as simply a module for Xoops, if photo galleries which have a very complex structure like Coppermine has been able to make a Bridging option with XOOPS with coppermine 1.4 beta (Not the hybrid and much restricted xcgal module which is very far from having all coppermine options) by having them as Standalones which simply recognize users from xoops, I don't understand why couldn't this be the case for SMF :

LET SMF BE A STANDALONE but using Usernames, groups and permissions from the XOOPS tables. Most of us have XOOPS and SMF and the only thing we don't like is for the visitors having to register both at XOOPS and in SMF.

I don't want to see SMF as "content" inside xoops, I don't even need the XOOPS menus on the left, and yes, the forum is a vital part of a community.

Really hope more open minded people take over this project because I'm afraid to say this is where Mambo is gaining ground quickly on XOOPS : The power of simplicity... they know people want something, they build it, not question why they want it.

Hope this isn't taken badly by mithrandir and a little suggestion : DO NOT REPLY until this has fully clicked in, you seem to be thinking of agressive comebacks instead of taking what might be useful instead of just biting back and taking it personally.

Thanks for your attention


Re: SMF bridge - ETA 1 Month

Points taken, but you are not seeing the whole picture.

I have absolutely no problems with integrations of proper forum software like phpBB and IPB - and I am certainly not against a bridge for SMF.

I'm just not going to do it.

Why? Because the coding of SMF is awful. There is no abstraction of anything, so "plugging into" the user management etc. that may sound like awfully simple tasks is actually quite a big task with many changes in many places.

I never claimed to be a great integrator of external scripts into XOOPS, so if someone wants the headache they are very welcome. I just think they'll be sorry they took it upon them to do so.

If you see in each post that I say XOOPS is great and XOOPS is best and that there is nothing you will ever need besides XOOPS, you are misunderstanding me.
I have many times said that XOOPS is not the best there is - but it is the best one to work with for me. Whenever there have been threads comparing XOOPS to Mambo, Xaraya, Drupal, e107 or any other CMS, you have not seen me say "they suck, use XOOPS". Instead I have played on the fact that each CMS has its strengths and weaknesses and that I feel that XOOPS has more strengths and fewer weaknesses than the other systems. I have actually encouraged people to try out other CMSs to see which one fits their needs best.
If you also noticed, I actually tried some preliminary integrations with SMF and found that it was a pain in the behind to work with. So not only did I look into what was behind it, I also tried working with it - have you done that?

When it comes to SMF, I don't see anything revolutionary and wanted to know WHY people like it so much - just to get replies like "it's the feel of it"... if you can tell me how to improve things based on that, I'm all ears.

I have been asking what it is that SMF gives that phpBB, IPB and Newbb/CBB doesn't give, because believe it or not - I hate wasting my time, don't you? People cannot give a proper reply other than "I want it" and the mentioned "feel". I'm sorry, but that is not worth my time. Sorry to be so narrow minded.

If people want it and demand it, they should find a solution to it - instead of just expecting ME to solve all their problems and fill all their requests. I just tried getting people to think more explicit about WHY they wanted and demanded it.
"When you can flatten entire cities at a whim, a tendency towards quiet reflection and seeing-things-from-the-other-fellow's-point-of-view is seldom necessary."

Cusix Software

Re: SMF bridge - ETA 1 Month
  • 2005/8/13 11:32

  • phppp

  • XOOPS Contributor

  • Posts: 2857

  • Since: 2004/1/25

Not only SMF but also many other existing scripts/projects are wanted by more or less XOOPS users.

For developers, it is not a matter Yes or No but a matter of Which First, the priority.

Back to the SMF case, if you pay for it, I believe you will for sure get someone to do it for you. Otherwise, it has to be put in a waiting list according to demand or its value to XOOPS.

As for SMF features, like Mith asked, what are the revolutionary or exclusive ones? If convinced, I do not mind moving it to my top list ---- off-topic, the SMF author is living not very far from me.

Re: SMF bridge
  • 2005/8/13 11:33

  • davidl2

  • XOOPS is my life!

  • Posts: 4843

  • Since: 2003/5/26

If theres features not in CBB that another system has ... then why not join the CBB team and help install them?

CBB is a XOOPS module... not a stand-alone system - so is easier for a XOOPS (or a good PHP coder) to work with to talk to the XOOPS core better

Re: SMF bridge
  • 2005/8/13 11:53

  • Lance_

  • Home away from home

  • Posts: 983

  • Since: 2004/1/12

Just a quick question, bridging related.

Wouldn't 2.2 with the extended profiles and available creation of all users fields facilitate the creation of bridges between apps? I see that in XOOPS you can create all the fileds required in the user section of the bridged app.

I would love to be able to bridge with php-collab, sugarcms, and other already mature apps that we won't see as XOOPS modules in the foreseeable future.

GDL-Web.com :: Website development.
Xoopslance.com::Freelancing and Projects
thelionsden-arena.net:: Clan/League/Ladder Hosting

Re: SMF bridge

Wouldn't 2.2 with the extended profiles and available creation of all users fields facilitate the creation of bridges between apps? I see that in XOOPS you can create all the fileds required in the user section of the bridged app.

I can assure you that it was one of the goals of the dynamic user field.

Whether it will actually BE easier, I don't know - but I hope so.
"When you can flatten entire cities at a whim, a tendency towards quiet reflection and seeing-things-from-the-other-fellow's-point-of-view is seldom necessary."

Cusix Software


Who's Online

52 user(s) are online (36 user(s) are browsing Support Forums)

Members: 0

Guests: 52



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

Latest GitHub Commits