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.
3736
Plugins / Re: Light URL Plugin Maybe?
« on April 17th, 2012, 02:20 PM »I mean if you have boards/sub boards and long topic names, it could be convenient.
domain.com/go/b#1 is shorter than domain.com/index.php?board=1 yes (but it requires rewrites and you can't get around that) and I'm not sure it's more convenient or easy to follow.
I won't even get into the performance issues linked to having /go/b#1 being rerouted to index.php?board=1 (since there's by definition two separate routes, knowing that the #1 won't be passed to systems normally)
But you've all missed the point I went at great lengths to try and explain. I got the fact that it would be an automatic thing, but if you make it a plugin, you have to either side-swipe other plugins and rewrite all their URLs (on top of the code in Wedge itself), or you have to expect the plugins to support it through choice. The former requires a lot of work, and the latter just isn't going to happen.
Now, let's say for the sake of argument that you make it core, presumably in addition to Pretty URLs. Not only, then, do you have to spend more time testing it, it makes it harder for plugin authors to work with, because there's three schemes instead of two that they have to contend with. I don't even see authors making real use of PURLs as it is, let alone having to navigate multiple schemes of URL routing.
3737
Plugins / Re: Light URL Plugin Maybe?
« on April 16th, 2012, 11:35 PM »
*shrug* The bottom line is that if you provide a system in the core, other plugins should generally adhere to it, but the harder you make it for them to use, the less likely they are to use it. So make it easy for plugins to do things - i.e. have it 'just work' and plugins will benefit without having to specifically code for it.
But if it's effort for plugins to support it, they won't, making the exercise a bit of a waste.
But if it's effort for plugins to support it, they won't, making the exercise a bit of a waste.
3738
Archived fixes / Re: SMF bug 4956 (slash in cache key causes cache to fail)
« on April 16th, 2012, 11:33 PM »Instead of the filemtime, I'd really (really) rather we have a $settings variable that we increment when we ask for a cache flush...
I don't really see security being any better if using md5() over base64. What can happen?
In any case, I don't see the need for storing $boardurl in the file name. And the base64 encoding should replace the strtr, at least that is proven to be as fast, or faster.
3739
Plugins / Re: Light URL Plugin Maybe?
« on April 16th, 2012, 11:19 PM »
It's an interesting concept but I'm not sure plugins will behave cleanly with it, I suspect unless it's managed pretty much automatically they won't use it.
Mind you, most plugins will only use PURLs features that are managed automatically (very few plugins for SMF ever cared, and those that did, were pretty much portals and/or PURLs type plugins in the first place), so if it can be done transparently and 'just work', plugins can use it but otherwise they probably won't.
Mind you, most plugins will only use PURLs features that are managed automatically (very few plugins for SMF ever cared, and those that did, were pretty much portals and/or PURLs type plugins in the first place), so if it can be done transparently and 'just work', plugins can use it but otherwise they probably won't.
3740
Archived fixes / Re: SMF bug 4956 (slash in cache key causes cache to fail)
« on April 16th, 2012, 11:17 PM »
Well, the md5 does have a security aspect to it as well, because not all servers listen to the contents of the .htaccess files (like IIS, nginx, some configurations of Apache)
Ideally I'd prefer ot keep that aspect of it in place unless there's a good reason not to (and right now, the slight performance increase vs the security aspect isn't quite enough)
Ideally I'd prefer ot keep that aspect of it in place unless there's a good reason not to (and right now, the slight performance increase vs the security aspect isn't quite enough)
3741
Plugins / Re: Light URL Plugin Maybe?
« on April 16th, 2012, 08:45 PM »
I know that, but there are circumstances where the incorrect query string won't be passed to PHP properly at all on those servers.
3742
Plugins / Re: Light URL Plugin Maybe?
« on April 16th, 2012, 08:39 PM »Feel free to correct me then on why?Quote from Arantor on April 16th, 2012, 08:18 PM Well done for quoting my post but missing my point. It won't work on 'all' webserver as you quote.
3743
Plugins / Re: Light URL Plugin Maybe?
« on April 16th, 2012, 08:18 PM »
Well done for quoting my post but missing my point. It won't work on 'all' webserver as you quote.
3744
Archived fixes / Re: SMF bug 4956 (slash in cache key causes cache to fail)
« on April 16th, 2012, 07:58 PM »Also, I'm not exactly sure why it absolutely needs to retrieve filemtime here, is it for security reasons? (i.e. not allowing a user to find the correct URL for the cache...)
And voilà, problem solved... And supercharged cache
3745
Archived fixes / Re: Buggy Feed links
« on April 16th, 2012, 07:56 PM »
Before I reply, I should note that I've been fighting with DIY endeavours today and am very tired and frustrated (and still only got one of the two items built)Quote You can't set it with ini_set. It's a PERDIR setting, not an ALL setting. You can only set it via .htaccess if your host allows you to do so (since it's a PHP setup thing, if you do it by ini_set, it's already too late as $_GET will by then already have been processed)Quote No, no, no it doesn't. Read what the code does. It detects whether arg_separator is ; or not, if it is, it sanitises $_GET based on it, if it's not, it re-parses the query string.
You cannot do this in ini_set, and if you make it rely on having ; set as arg_separator, Wedge WILL break if that code is removed.Quote Are you planning on restricting Wedge to hosts that are VPSes or better, or allow users to reconfigure things in .htaccess (specifically PHP settings via .htaccess)?
You don't actually have much of a choice on this. arg_separator is not ; by default, it's &, and since that's set up prior to a PHP script running, you don't have much choice in how that works. Either you restrict Wedge to hosts that allow custom configuration, or you leave the code alone because it works just fine as it is.Quote I did the same thing you did, a $context setting to have it never inject SID into URLs. But since you've committed it, I didn't bother (and I wasn't that happy with it, I felt there should have been something more elaborate)Quote I know what they were trying to fix, I know exactly what and how they were trying to fix it, I just don't understand why that was there.Quote For the same reason IP addresses are unreliable as sin anyway, things like NAT routing, where an IP address does not relate to a unique computer any more nor to a unique user.Quote Except that I saw cases where the trailing ; was present and cases where it wasn't - in the same page.
It will break for servers that don't support both @ini_set and the specific setting that is arg_separator...
That code block is about providing compatibility with & (which it doesn't do entirely because it doesn't change links in the HTML afaik..??), and fixing other things.
You cannot do this in ini_set, and if you make it rely on having ; set as arg_separator, Wedge WILL break if that code is removed.
Actually, as I said, I'd rather we don't provide support for & links... (Well, inside PURLs if anything!)
You don't actually have much of a choice on this. arg_separator is not ; by default, it's &, and since that's set up prior to a PHP script running, you don't have much choice in how that works. Either you restrict Wedge to hosts that allow custom configuration, or you leave the code alone because it works just fine as it is.
Committed what...? (I already feel a commit conflict coming...)
Sometimes, you need to re-break things to understand what they tried to fix in the first place.
But how come we can't simply determine that a new session with the same IP is simply the same session...? (Or at least the same person, when it comes to calculating stats...)
Which was due to my currently doing a rtrim() on the final URL and deleting any extra characters like ";"...
Previously, it was first removing & at the end and then removing ; or whatever.
3746
Archived fixes / Re: Profile error
« on April 16th, 2012, 01:30 PM »
It's not even Ikea, it's 'Argos', which is the cheaper and nastier version (but the furniture, if it has all the parts, is usually OK) - currently waiting for delivery, having now moved everything out of my room.
3747
The Pub / Re: The Cookie Law (in the UK at least)
« on April 16th, 2012, 01:29 PM »
You mean I'd have to run SMF instead of running Wedge on my sites (since I'd be banned from using it)?
3748
Archived fixes / Re: Profile error
« on April 16th, 2012, 11:54 AM »
OK, I'll remember that (not like I'm going to have time to go coding today anyway, I need to move all the stuff out of my room, then assemble a large bookcase and a wardrobe, then move everything back in... despite a '2 hours to build' message on each, it's clearly going to take me all day to assemble, having done these things before)
I haven't actually got anything at present to commit anyway :( Just not had time with everything going on to really get into anything properly. :(
I haven't actually got anything at present to commit anyway :( Just not had time with everything going on to really get into anything properly. :(
3749
The Pub / Re: Starting date of the topic in the subject index
« on April 16th, 2012, 11:52 AM »
The reason for not including the start date in the message index is simply becaue it's already VERY CLUTTERED and putting in more clutter makes it harder to use, not easier.
I'd also note that most of the time people do not care when a thread was started.
I'd also note that most of the time people do not care when a thread was started.
3750
Archived fixes / Re: Buggy Feed links
« on April 16th, 2012, 11:50 AM »This is (was) because the session ID injector wouldn't correctly identify static cache files as static, and would inject the SID into the names.
As they're not treated by purls, we always end up with a ";" at the end, the one that's injected by the SID test... (Currently '&' in SVN, which is even worse... Or maybe it isn't so? I remember removing a test against & which was probably done for that reason...?)