This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
2071
Bug reports / Re: Cannot read the CSS - Alpha 2
« on January 6th, 2013, 01:41 AM »
Yes, it should take a little longer to get to plain text than SMF would - on a completely fresh install the first time, where it has to generate the cached CSS. It sounds like for some reason, the CSS files are being regenerated too regularly (which would explain the slowdown) and it's not even calling them. I'm still thinking permissions issue with the CSS folder.
2072
Bug reports / Re: Cannot read the CSS - Alpha 2
« on January 6th, 2013, 01:19 AM »
Does it work properly in other browsers?
2073
Features / Re: New revs - Public comments
« on January 6th, 2013, 12:54 AM »
If it hadn't been me that said it, it would have been someone else.
2074
Bug reports / Re: Cannot read the CSS - Alpha 2
« on January 6th, 2013, 12:54 AM »
Do those files exist inside the css/ folder?
2075
Features / Re: New revs - Public comments
« on January 6th, 2013, 12:31 AM »
men u do me?
Sounds like something a lady of the night might wonder.
Sounds like something a lady of the night might wonder.
2076
Plugins / Re: Extending the moderation filter actions when posting
« on January 6th, 2013, 12:18 AM »
Yes, this is absolutely intended behaviour. It may not be entirely logical to you, but it's doing *exactly* what you've told it - moderate the post because it contains a given word. If you don't want that behaviour to apply to admins, make an exclusion for them - moderate the post... if it contains a given word AND user is not in group Administrators.
Consider the other practical case - it would help discourage moderators from using profanities.
Consider the other practical case - it would help discourage moderators from using profanities.
2077
Features / Re: New revs - Public comments
« on January 5th, 2013, 06:44 PM »I mean, once it's created (through the first fopen/fclose call), why not just touch it..? Who's going to edit it and add stuff to it anyway..?
A certain amount of this is security by design; if I'm creating a file, I feel responsible for the content of that file, and it's my duty to make sure that file doesn't have anything in it that it shouldn't have.
So, how about removing the ?> altogether..?
But isn't entity fixing a feature of westr? So why not just rely on westr to call our thingies...? It's easy enough to set a method as a callback for preg_replace, after all.
It's not about what looks natural here, it's mostly about following the SMF guidelines.
o, anyway, I've gotten used to SMF's way, but have no qualms with yours either. What do we call? "Anything goes for the query call indenting format"...?
I said heredocs
$("#menu").dome();
Oh..hell no.
2078
Features: Forward thinking / Re: jQuery support
« on January 5th, 2013, 06:25 PM »
No-one's actually noticed except me anyway ;)
2079
Features: Forward thinking / Re: jQuery support
« on January 5th, 2013, 06:11 PM »
<preaching>I have specific issues with specific bits of Java. The two big things are the broken security model and the way everything is turned into classes, and by extension the way you can have multiple copies of a method with the same name but different call signatures. What you end up with is a series of classes with increasingly ridiculously long names. The consequential 'write once run anywhere' myth doesn't work either.</preaching>
Java has a place, and not just because of the amount of code written in it. But you'll never convince me to run it in the browser, and the fact that I've had to deal with users who can't move Java versions because of code that absolutely depends on 1.4 or 1.5 rather than later versions just irritates >_<
Here endeth the lesson.Quote That's interesting, actually. I'd be inclined to upgrade to that for future compatibility purposes.
Java has a place, and not just because of the amount of code written in it. But you'll never convince me to run it in the browser, and the fact that I've had to deal with users who can't move Java versions because of code that absolutely depends on 1.4 or 1.5 rather than later versions just irritates >_<
Here endeth the lesson.
which is interesting because it has potentially the widest future market share for jQuery versions.
2080
Plugins / Re: Extending the moderation filter actions when posting
« on January 5th, 2013, 06:11 PM »
But it's always worked for me, I've never been able to make it not work, though I'll test it again in a bit.
2081
The Pub / Re: Context object?
« on January 5th, 2013, 03:43 PM »I think I know why... There are two ways of making a singleton. One is static (the ones we usually use), one is dynamic (I think the editor somehow uses instances, would have to dig into it). Here's an example:
A plugin calling for another instance of an object?
I can sense the tongue in cheek, but really it isn't the same thing. getInstance() means to me "get a pointer to that object", while init() means "initialize that object"
because eventually I'll always start nit-picking about this or that, not because it NEEDS to be said, but because I feel I'm wasting my time if I don't have at least a line or two to change.
I don't know how you do it yourself, maybe you don't proof-read much of my code, I don't know, maybe you just don't feel the need to add your touch, in which case you're lucky, but in the end that's what I am: an annoying partner who's full of good intentions, but not exactly good at explaining them or justifying them other than saying it 'makes more sense'.
No, actually I don't give a damn about filesize. ESPECIALLY when it comes to the admin area -- go crazy and waste as many bytes as you like over there, because it's a private area that has absolutely zero impact on overall server performance or bandwidth.
Oh, by the way this reminds me... Why not follow the CDN setting for jQuery UI too? I mean, the same file is available through here as well...
ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jqueryui/1.8.24/jquery-ui.min.js (latest hosted version is 1.9.2)
And other CDNs like code.jquery.com, of course.
Or directly use that one only. I'm not 100% sure about it though, I'm not even 20% sure about it, because if we encourage plugin authors to use the CDN version, there's hardly a way to determine that they're not double-loading it -- IIRC Wedge deletes duplicate URLs, but we can't be sure they're not going to use a different CDN or version.
(Then again, the most likely conflict to happen is that people start making a plugin out of a JS script that also requires jQuery UI, and then they add another JS script that also requires it, and voilà, conflict...)
Nah, really what I thought is that maybe you shouldn't kill yourself over rewriting a class if there's already an acceptable solution out there
But permission error = security error, right...? Doesn't that warrant an immediate hack fix?
But this has been present for months, it's present on this very site right now for all users who are not you. The difference is, it doesn't have any visible sign that it's happening here, there's nothing going to the error log. It's the same class of error that you could stuff a @ in front of, knowing that it's probably going to fail and you don't care if it does. And there are times when that's acceptable; there's plenty of cases in wextr where I've done that, with the expectation that it's going to fail, but I didn't want any kind of error being thrown by PHP when I will be cleaning it up myself.
In this particular case, though, putting a @ in it will stop the error being thrown but it won't actually fix the problem. It's not like the error must always be thrown and there's no way to fix that; I used it with extreme prejudice in wextr because I'm dealing with fopen/fread etc, where they're relying on things outside of Wedge's control to behave, but here, everything is under Wedge's control and there is no reason why we shouldn't fix it once and for all - properly.
The danger of doing a hack is much like putting a band-aid on a problem; it doesn't fix the problem. It just prevents it getting obviously worse. What we should be doing is fixing the root problem instead.
As I said at the beginning of my post, ever since you went back in full gear, I've been having a very hard time catching up with your topics... And I actually stopped trying a couple of weeks after your numerous new topics. I just couldn't keep up, so I just focused on the new ones. It's hard. I guess I'm more of a "code first, ask questions later" type...
Actually, I think you should do that as well. Your code is always of the utmost quality, you have great ideas, you don't have to explain them and ask for opinions because we're always here telling you to do it. And whatever comes later -- well, at least you'll have done it, which is not something many people can brag about.
| 1. | Crazy indentation, and C-style return values, e.g. sending everything into a function by reference and returning zero on success or non-zero for an error. Even when options were set, you'd pass them in as $class->function(PCLZIP_OPT_SOMETHING, its_value, PCLZIP_OPT_SOMETHINGELSE, its_value, PCLZIP_OPT_WITHOUTVALUE, PCLZIP_OPT_SOMETHING, its_value), it was horrendous. I understood the mentality, but I didn't like it. I spent maybe a week on a partial rewrite, cleaning up the code, trimming methods I didn't see a need for like duplicate (what's wrong with copying the damn file?) and restructuring the API but in the end I accepted that a general purpose zip library didn't really need to be written, Wedge already had a crude zip maker library, I just needed a zip extraction library that allowed me to work without unpacking the entire archive at once. |
2082
Plugins / Re: Extending the moderation filter actions when posting
« on January 5th, 2013, 03:15 PM »
I thought the code checked that? Been ages since I looked at it.
2083
Features: Forward thinking / Re: jQuery support
« on January 5th, 2013, 03:15 PM »
Well, the only thing that strikes me as important is jQuery UI compatibility - when finding jQuery UI, I had to find the right version, specifically an older version, that would work on our version of jQuery.
Keeping with older versions of jQuery isn't likely to generate significant bugs, but it might cause trouble for mod authors just using scripts they've found elsewhere on the net, especially if it expects 1.6+ syntax and functionality regarding .prop() I believe it was called.
Keeping with older versions of jQuery isn't likely to generate significant bugs, but it might cause trouble for mod authors just using scripts they've found elsewhere on the net, especially if it expects 1.6+ syntax and functionality regarding .prop() I believe it was called.
* Arantor does not particularly like JS.
2084
The Pub / Re: Context object?
« on January 5th, 2013, 04:23 AM »
I'm tired, I'm pissed off and I keep hearing the same things over and over: why don't you use <x>, why don't you do it <this way>? If I thought using <x> was a good idea or doing it <this way> was a good idea, I'd have done it.
I wouldn't have spent the time and effort I have spent, chasing the most ass-backward solution I couldn't even have dreamed of in my darkest nightmares, if I thought for one moment there was a better way that had any reliability without compromising security. The fact that I've documented this many times in the last 18 months is just icing on the cake to me, only to now effectively be told that I'm wasting my time. It's like an architect spending a year of his life designing the most amazing palace and then just getting a shed from IKEA and knocking it together in the afternoon so he could go down the pub. That isn't how I work, you know me well enough by now to know that that isn't how I work.
Yes, I could use these other methods, but I don't like compromise. I won't trade security for anything, and I won't trade performance for laziness - calling something twice because the first time it couldn't be done properly just says we need to fix it so it would work the first time as far as possible, and that means doing what I've been saying for 2 1/2 years about overhauling permissions anyway.
This is why I'm so pissed off. It feels like no-one's listening to what I'm saying. None of this is new, none of this is suddenly out of nowhere. It's not like all of a sudden I'm springing things on you or anyone else. I feel like my posts are on global ignore because what I'm saying is not being taken into account even if I explain them multiple times at great length.
It hurts. It hurts that I feel like this. It hurts that I feel like I'm wasting my time, that I've spent hours and hours researching this stuff to be able to build the best that it can be. It hurts that you don't seem to trust my judgement enough, because if you did, you wouldn't be questioning the rationale behind my thoughts (doubly so since I've already explained most of them multiple times)
I've been tempted to throw the towel in, but we've come a long way and I don't want to waste that. Not for anything or anyone, no matter how frustrated I get. But there's no point in my documenting what I'm going to do, why I'm going to do it or how I think it should just be done - because no-one's reading it anyway. Instead I'm just going to do it and say what I've done. I'm not even going to bother writing *why* any of it was done, because there's clearly no point in doing that beyond the changelog, I'll just wait to be asked in future, because then I'll only write it all out 1 1/2 times (there are of course comments in the source for everything), and save my energy for trying to write code, because I clearly suck at anything else like explaining what I'm doing in a way that anyone reads or cares about.
I wouldn't have spent the time and effort I have spent, chasing the most ass-backward solution I couldn't even have dreamed of in my darkest nightmares, if I thought for one moment there was a better way that had any reliability without compromising security. The fact that I've documented this many times in the last 18 months is just icing on the cake to me, only to now effectively be told that I'm wasting my time. It's like an architect spending a year of his life designing the most amazing palace and then just getting a shed from IKEA and knocking it together in the afternoon so he could go down the pub. That isn't how I work, you know me well enough by now to know that that isn't how I work.
Yes, I could use these other methods, but I don't like compromise. I won't trade security for anything, and I won't trade performance for laziness - calling something twice because the first time it couldn't be done properly just says we need to fix it so it would work the first time as far as possible, and that means doing what I've been saying for 2 1/2 years about overhauling permissions anyway.
This is why I'm so pissed off. It feels like no-one's listening to what I'm saying. None of this is new, none of this is suddenly out of nowhere. It's not like all of a sudden I'm springing things on you or anyone else. I feel like my posts are on global ignore because what I'm saying is not being taken into account even if I explain them multiple times at great length.
It hurts. It hurts that I feel like this. It hurts that I feel like I'm wasting my time, that I've spent hours and hours researching this stuff to be able to build the best that it can be. It hurts that you don't seem to trust my judgement enough, because if you did, you wouldn't be questioning the rationale behind my thoughts (doubly so since I've already explained most of them multiple times)
I've been tempted to throw the towel in, but we've come a long way and I don't want to waste that. Not for anything or anyone, no matter how frustrated I get. But there's no point in my documenting what I'm going to do, why I'm going to do it or how I think it should just be done - because no-one's reading it anyway. Instead I'm just going to do it and say what I've done. I'm not even going to bother writing *why* any of it was done, because there's clearly no point in doing that beyond the changelog, I'll just wait to be asked in future, because then I'll only write it all out 1 1/2 times (there are of course comments in the source for everything), and save my energy for trying to write code, because I clearly suck at anything else like explaining what I'm doing in a way that anyone reads or cares about.
2085
Plugins / Re: Extending the moderation filter actions when posting
« on January 5th, 2013, 04:11 AM »
And did you select both a board and one of the radio buttons?
I couldn't reproduce it misbehaving.
I couldn't reproduce it misbehaving.