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.
3466
Off-topic / Re: Bridges between other softwares and Wedge
« on May 8th, 2012, 10:09 PM »
It's unlikely. Part of the problem is the licenses of the other systems, they don't work all that well with the current (and likely future) licence of Wedge.
I should also add that it's incredibly unlikely that we'll ever write bridges for Drupal or Joomla, having actually tried to USE those, they confuse me, which should give you some idea of how complicated I find them to use, and if that's how the user-experience is, imagine how complicated the code is going to be. Wedge is not designed for bridging, especially when in all honesty you could do a much better job not bridging but building a CMS on top of Wedge.
I should also add that it's incredibly unlikely that we'll ever write bridges for Drupal or Joomla, having actually tried to USE those, they confuse me, which should give you some idea of how complicated I find them to use, and if that's how the user-experience is, imagine how complicated the code is going to be. Wedge is not designed for bridging, especially when in all honesty you could do a much better job not bridging but building a CMS on top of Wedge.
3467
Off-topic / Re: Can I ask a totally stupid off topic question?
« on May 8th, 2012, 08:19 PM »
I suspect it isn't, actually. Take Nao, for example... before he worked with Aeva and SMF, he worked on Kyodai Mahjongg which IIRC was written in Delphi - which is just another iteration of Pascal.
I think, though, if you look you'll find a lot of similar concepts in PHP, it's derived from C and a *lot* of languages have similarities.
I think, though, if you look you'll find a lot of similar concepts in PHP, it's derived from C and a *lot* of languages have similarities.
3468
Off-topic / Re: Can I ask a totally stupid off topic question?
« on May 8th, 2012, 07:23 PM »
Heh, I can fully understand that. Though PHP hasn't really changed in several years, with more enhancements than dramatic overhauls.
3469
Off-topic / Re: Can I ask a totally stupid off topic question?
« on May 8th, 2012, 07:05 PM »
It's not obvious, no.
What happens is that the Tapatalk code is adjoined to the forum and the app specifically contacts the extra code, rather than contacting the normal main forum code. It's a bit more complicated than that, but that's the nuts and bolts of it.
The fact that you can only find a forum through their site is mostly to get round a rule in one of the app stores' rules (probably Apple's)
What happens is that the Tapatalk code is adjoined to the forum and the app specifically contacts the extra code, rather than contacting the normal main forum code. It's a bit more complicated than that, but that's the nuts and bolts of it.
The fact that you can only find a forum through their site is mostly to get round a rule in one of the app stores' rules (probably Apple's)
3470
Bug reports / Re: Pretty URL remarks
« on May 7th, 2012, 02:37 AM »
Because for file based caches, the available evidence would seem to suggest that the overhead of performing the writing would erode the benefit of caching.
I'm not sure about handling caching either though.
I'm not sure about handling caching either though.
3471
Bug reports / Re: Pretty URL remarks
« on May 7th, 2012, 01:42 AM »
Yes, remove DB caching and if any caching is going to occur, do it via cache_put_data if (isset($settings['cache_level']) && $settings['cache_level'] >= 2)
3472
Bug reports / Re: Pretty URL remarks
« on May 7th, 2012, 12:10 AM »
Disk I/O is always slower than using memory caches - always. That's why you have memory caches ;) In any case, writes are physically more intensive to perform than reads, in whatever environment you care to name. It's really about the comparative performance which is almost impossible to test meaningfully.
That's really the thing, if cache level >= 2, cache pretty URL stuff, if not, don't.
That's really the thing, if cache level >= 2, cache pretty URL stuff, if not, don't.
3473
Bug reports / Re: Pretty URL remarks
« on May 6th, 2012, 11:54 PM »
That would imply then that you want to extend the TTL on caching so that you do fewer writes.
You could leave the caching subsystem in, but only cache things if it's level 2 or higher (so that you actually have to have a proper memory cache in order to use it)
You could leave the caching subsystem in, but only cache things if it's level 2 or higher (so that you actually have to have a proper memory cache in order to use it)
3474
Features / Re: New revs - Public comments
« on May 6th, 2012, 03:33 AM »Now for a good suggestion too... Should likes be disabled if a topic is locked? My gut feeling is 'no'.
I don't use it much, really.
And I suppose you're expecting me to find the names......
Easy to say, cowboy! You read faster than your shadow...
3475
Features / Re: Action buttons: positioning
« on May 6th, 2012, 01:37 AM »
Implementing it without requiring a reload is something I meant to do just didn't get time to write the JS for it.
Note that all suggestions of 'silent like' are completely different to what you're suggesting.
Note that all suggestions of 'silent like' are completely different to what you're suggesting.
3476
Features / Re: Action buttons: positioning
« on May 6th, 2012, 12:15 AM »
The thing is, it's going to make it much slower and heavier to store, for something that is essentially a minor feature. If someone wants it for a plugin, fine, but I think doing anything more than what we have is a bit much... (though I'm not disputing that we need a few things, like being able to turn it off, being able to get a list of likes)
3477
Off-topic / Re: So, busy out here in RL
« on May 5th, 2012, 07:54 PM »
The fact it's the webserver, really. Installing Apache is piss-easy, building anything even modestly complex in Node.js tends to invoke lots of things on top. For example, I'm using Express to handle routing and certain types of errors, but even that requires some work to do anything intricate that isn't 'out of the box'.
The other thing is that you have to be careful about how you do things. Node itself is a single thread, and the idea is that for any I/O operations you're supposed to branch off, letting a subprocess perform the I/O (which includes DB queries for example) and handle the result as a callback; the idea is that instead of having to wait around for queries to complete, you don't block the process from working and allow the main process to process other requests.
It's an interesting process if you're not used to writing in that manner, because while it is much like the JS you'd write in the client of 'kicking something off and getting a callback when it's done', you really have to do that a lot more and as you can imagine anything with any complexity is going to require multiple nested callbacks, even with some of the abstracted stuff going on to make it simpler.
The one thing I'd note is that most folks using Node aren't using conventional DBs either, but using things like CouchDB and MongoDB (Mongo is more what I'm looking for, and there is a lot of advantage to having JSON for adding objects and nesting objects inside them)
Also imagine that you have to do a lot more of the session handling sorts of things yourself (though Express does some of that for you)
Node.js is a tool for specific caseloads, rather than a general deployment.
The other thing is that you have to be careful about how you do things. Node itself is a single thread, and the idea is that for any I/O operations you're supposed to branch off, letting a subprocess perform the I/O (which includes DB queries for example) and handle the result as a callback; the idea is that instead of having to wait around for queries to complete, you don't block the process from working and allow the main process to process other requests.
It's an interesting process if you're not used to writing in that manner, because while it is much like the JS you'd write in the client of 'kicking something off and getting a callback when it's done', you really have to do that a lot more and as you can imagine anything with any complexity is going to require multiple nested callbacks, even with some of the abstracted stuff going on to make it simpler.
The one thing I'd note is that most folks using Node aren't using conventional DBs either, but using things like CouchDB and MongoDB (Mongo is more what I'm looking for, and there is a lot of advantage to having JSON for adding objects and nesting objects inside them)
Also imagine that you have to do a lot more of the session handling sorts of things yourself (though Express does some of that for you)
Node.js is a tool for specific caseloads, rather than a general deployment.
3478
Off-topic / Re: So, busy out here in RL
« on May 5th, 2012, 07:31 PM »
In the conventional server setup you have the client polling Apache, which has to contact PHP. It cannot scale to that many connections when you leave them open (because the PHP client has to remain idle and open per connection in Apache)
In this case, Node.js is the webserver itself, and it's more than capable of leaving thousands of connections open and idle with little significant overhead and push things back to the client when necessary (so that instead of making regular polls, we use websockets to open full duplex connections - the result is MUCH less work all round)
In this case, Node.js is the webserver itself, and it's more than capable of leaving thousands of connections open and idle with little significant overhead and push things back to the client when necessary (so that instead of making regular polls, we use websockets to open full duplex connections - the result is MUCH less work all round)
3479
Features / Re: Action buttons: positioning
« on May 5th, 2012, 06:13 PM »I think it might be an interesting thing to do, though. I never discussed it before, but see it this way: let's say you want to Like a NSFW picture and your boss is on the same forum as you are... You won't "like" it because you'll be afraid he finds out you liked it. So, hiding your name from the Like list seems okay to me...
Schema change yes -- adding a new field where you store whether the user wants to remain anonymous, but that's all..?
I'm not sure, there is such a thing as having too much stuff.
I'm still not 100% sure about whether or not I'll keep the note classes with likes number etc... But at least it's a solution that would be perfect on mobile. (Perhaps I should just show the 'You like this' text next to it, and then hide it entirely on a media query test.)
Very oddly -- it seems like your file is done like this: it's missing the first 30893 bytes of the original file, then you get the rest of the file, then at the end, it adds another 30893 bytes which seem to be repeated from offset 52078 of the original file (i.e. it adds them again)... Make what you want of it, but I'm at a loss myself.
3480
Features / Re: Action buttons: positioning
« on May 5th, 2012, 05:35 PM »
The 'silently like' option will require a schema and query change.
A lot of this stuff is going to be based on how it looks when we actually try it, you know. As long as the like button can just be clicked without having to hover or wait or anything, it'll probably work out OK to have unliking be less prominent.
Bump for attachment broken issue.
A lot of this stuff is going to be based on how it looks when we actually try it, you know. As long as the like button can just be clicked without having to hover or wait or anything, it'll probably work out OK to have unliking be less prominent.
Bump for attachment broken issue.