Show Posts
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.
Messages - Arantor
4471
Features / Re: Selectbox
« on March 8th, 2012, 05:52 PM »
Heh, that works. The extra trim came about because I wasn't thinking so clearly at the time of originally writing it, and yes that would be an improvement.
4472
Features / Re: Selectbox
« on March 8th, 2012, 04:33 PM »Well, the alternative would be to increase the box size dynamically, but it would look even worse because it'd break the layout for the first line of buttons
Where do we stop?
Actually this one's really simple and will mean I can commit something useful this afternoon rather than wading through more FTP crap.
Posted: March 8th, 2012, 04:07 PM
And presto, micro-feature.
4473
Features / Re: New revs
« on March 8th, 2012, 04:32 PM »
(9 files, 3KB)
Revision: 1448
Author: arantor
Date: 08 March 2012 15:32:03
Message:
! Converted 'don't warn me on new replies' to 'warn me on new replies' (on by default, of course) (install.sql, ManageMemberOptions.php, Post.php, Post2.php, Profile language file)
! Allow the list of fonts in the editor to be customisable with relative ease. (install.sql, Class-Editor.php, ManagePosts.php, Admin language file)
----
Modified : /trunk/Sources/Class-Editor.php
Modified : /trunk/Sources/ManageMemberOptions.php
Modified : /trunk/Sources/ManagePosts.php
Modified : /trunk/Sources/Post.php
Modified : /trunk/Sources/Post2.php
Modified : /trunk/Themes/default/languages/Admin.english.php
Modified : /trunk/Themes/default/languages/Profile.english.php
Modified : /trunk/Themes/default/languages/Profile.french.php
Modified : /trunk/other/install.sql
Revision: 1448
Author: arantor
Date: 08 March 2012 15:32:03
Message:
! Converted 'don't warn me on new replies' to 'warn me on new replies' (on by default, of course) (install.sql, ManageMemberOptions.php, Post.php, Post2.php, Profile language file)
! Allow the list of fonts in the editor to be customisable with relative ease. (install.sql, Class-Editor.php, ManagePosts.php, Admin language file)
----
Modified : /trunk/Sources/Class-Editor.php
Modified : /trunk/Sources/ManageMemberOptions.php
Modified : /trunk/Sources/ManagePosts.php
Modified : /trunk/Sources/Post.php
Modified : /trunk/Sources/Post2.php
Modified : /trunk/Themes/default/languages/Admin.english.php
Modified : /trunk/Themes/default/languages/Profile.english.php
Modified : /trunk/Themes/default/languages/Profile.french.php
Modified : /trunk/other/install.sql
4474
The Pub / Re: Logo Madness
« on March 8th, 2012, 04:23 PM »
You are, as you say, The Man.
I like that badge too. While I wasn't overly sold on the blue/brown arcs like that, it works.
I like that badge too. While I wasn't overly sold on the blue/brown arcs like that, it works.
4475
Features / Re: Image resizing for non-uploads
« on March 8th, 2012, 04:22 PM »
I would also note there are several SMF mods centered around doing the exact same thing with Highslide etc. so it would be good for us to do something similar in the core using the facilities you already made ;)
4476
The Pub / Re: Logo Madness
« on March 8th, 2012, 04:18 PM »Bump, for Pete to tell me off
4477
Features / Re: Image resizing for non-uploads
« on March 8th, 2012, 04:06 PM »
I just tried it and nothing happened that I could see, anyway... but I did it quickly, didn't check for errors, so it's entirely possible there is something already.
4478
Features / Re: Selectbox
« on March 8th, 2012, 03:59 PM »
Oh, I like the fact the size is in the box, just that the text size is bigger than the box it's inside!
I like the font being shown like that, too, looks good.
I like the font being shown like that, too, looks good.
* Arantor is suddenly reminded of another micro feature he should add.
4479
Features / Image resizing for non-uploads
« on March 8th, 2012, 03:56 PM »
Right now we have the ability to limit the image size of images posted via the img tag, to ensure they're not made huge.
E.g. if you try and post a massive photo but the settings say 150x150, you get a 150x150 size shown (though it doesn't actually resize/thumbnail the image, it just shows it at that size)
What I'm wondering is whether it might not be a bad idea to indicate that the picture isn't full size in those cases and have it automatically link back to the full size image - or even make use of Zoomedia to do that?
E.g. if you try and post a massive photo but the settings say 150x150, you get a 150x150 size shown (though it doesn't actually resize/thumbnail the image, it just shows it at that size)
What I'm wondering is whether it might not be a bad idea to indicate that the picture isn't full size in those cases and have it automatically link back to the full size image - or even make use of Zoomedia to do that?
4480
Features / Re: Selectbox
« on March 8th, 2012, 03:48 PM »
Oops, found a bug. Note that I'm not sure what the behaviour *should* be in this case, just that I know it's currently wrong.
4481
Plugins / Re: Mad idea but it might just work
« on March 8th, 2012, 03:42 PM »
I'm not pissed that I had to find out. I'm pissed that it feels like such a clusterfuck.
It makes the HTTP specification look even more sane than I thought it was, which is an achievement.
It makes the HTTP specification look even more sane than I thought it was, which is an achievement.
4482
Features / Re: Poll mode
« on March 8th, 2012, 03:41 PM »
Is this something that we need in the core? Or something we should look at making a plugin?
(It would certainly be easier to support in the core, I'm just trying to understand if we 'really need' it or not.)
I would note that if we plan on doing 'who voted what' as we talked about, it's going to get awful crowded awful quick.
Also, I'm thinking of setting it up so that there are 10 classes applied to the poll bars, so that the first one is .pollbar .bar1 or whatever, so that themers can - if they want - get the vB look and feel of having different coloured poll bars, but that they're still consistent otherwise.
(It would certainly be easier to support in the core, I'm just trying to understand if we 'really need' it or not.)
I would note that if we plan on doing 'who voted what' as we talked about, it's going to get awful crowded awful quick.
Also, I'm thinking of setting it up so that there are 10 classes applied to the poll bars, so that the first one is .pollbar .bar1 or whatever, so that themers can - if they want - get the vB look and feel of having different coloured poll bars, but that they're still consistent otherwise.
4483
Plugins / Re: Mad idea but it might just work
« on March 8th, 2012, 03:33 PM »
Well, the 220 lines are just informational; IPv6 may be welcome but it requires more work to set it up, and I can tell immediately from that you're still using IPv4 yourself (which is what the PASV and the status 227 indicates)
But yeah, I can now tell you what all that crap means.
But yeah, I can now tell you what all that crap means.
4484
Features / Re: Privacy options
« on March 8th, 2012, 03:31 PM »So, technically, anyone will be able to read their post in the Recent Posts area, but not click on it to see it in context...?
Also, what about if I'm found out to be a positive for topic privacy as soon as the first item in the privacy list? Will the JOIN keep going through the table? Would a LIMIT 1 be enough to stop it from doing that? But then we need a subselect, right...?
So much fun. And we get to do this for both topic and thought privacy... *And* write the UI later as well... Eh eh.
Or query_see_message when no topic join is available... I don't really see a better way of doing it than forcibly adding a subselect on the topic.
Ready to digest, or giving up?
4485
Plugins / Re: Mad idea but it might just work
« on March 8th, 2012, 03:00 PM »
OK, so a little progress update from me. I'm curious how this is going to work going forward, because in the not too distant future, it can't work.
To explain briefly, when you create an FTP connection of the kind needed here[1], several things happen. Firstly, it isn't one connection that's made, it's two. You have a control connection, which is the one that you normally see in an FTP client, it's the one where the text instructions are sent.
Then you have a data connection, which operates on another port, and sometimes even another IP address, where the data goes to/from. There are several neat things you can do with this.[2]
Here's the interesting quirk. When you create that secondary connection, you get a string back from the remote server, in the form of a,b,c,d,x,y (6 numbers, separated by commas), a-d are the four parts of the IP address and x-y are the port number, and you have to multiply x by 256 and add y to get the number back.
Anyone see the problem yet?
There is absolutely zero IPv6 support in the FTP specification. At least, in the classic RFC 959 from 1985 that outlines FTP.
Now, RFC 2428 from 1998 does explain how to support IPv6, but I'm not clear how widespread the use of EPSV vs PASV is (this is the instruction required to start a passive connection, which is very specifically what we need to use), so I'm honestly not 100% clear on how feasible it is to support these.
On top of this, it gets worse. There isn't a single consistent method for handling FTP connections. There's an FTP extension to PHP, there's the partial FTP connector in SMF/Wedge (which does not include a send-file method), plus a variety of other connectors too, all of which with their own foibles to contend with.
I'm not giving up just yet, but I've spent a lot of time reading up on these specifications, learning far more minutiae than I *ever* wanted to know about FTP, and this is before I even tackle SFTP. I just need to step back and clear my mind before I try implementing anything on this.
To explain briefly, when you create an FTP connection of the kind needed here[1], several things happen. Firstly, it isn't one connection that's made, it's two. You have a control connection, which is the one that you normally see in an FTP client, it's the one where the text instructions are sent.
Then you have a data connection, which operates on another port, and sometimes even another IP address, where the data goes to/from. There are several neat things you can do with this.[2]
Here's the interesting quirk. When you create that secondary connection, you get a string back from the remote server, in the form of a,b,c,d,x,y (6 numbers, separated by commas), a-d are the four parts of the IP address and x-y are the port number, and you have to multiply x by 256 and add y to get the number back.
Anyone see the problem yet?
There is absolutely zero IPv6 support in the FTP specification. At least, in the classic RFC 959 from 1985 that outlines FTP.
Now, RFC 2428 from 1998 does explain how to support IPv6, but I'm not clear how widespread the use of EPSV vs PASV is (this is the instruction required to start a passive connection, which is very specifically what we need to use), so I'm honestly not 100% clear on how feasible it is to support these.
On top of this, it gets worse. There isn't a single consistent method for handling FTP connections. There's an FTP extension to PHP, there's the partial FTP connector in SMF/Wedge (which does not include a send-file method), plus a variety of other connectors too, all of which with their own foibles to contend with.
I'm not giving up just yet, but I've spent a lot of time reading up on these specifications, learning far more minutiae than I *ever* wanted to know about FTP, and this is before I even tackle SFTP. I just need to step back and clear my mind before I try implementing anything on this.
| 1. | In other words, one where you're sending or receiving data, and not just changing directories, etc. |
| 2. | Namely you can have three machines, A, B and C. A is the master controller, and deals with having control connections to B and C, then A can tell B to send C a file, and tell C to receive it, while A itself doesn't ever have to do anything other than just delegate. |