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.
6856
Off-topic / Re: Dial Up BBS
« on August 3rd, 2011, 11:35 PM »
You guys know how to make me feel like a young kid again :P
6857
Development blog / Re: A nice kick in the CSS
« on August 3rd, 2011, 11:34 PM »
Oh, that's awesome :)
I should note that as I refine some of the systems I'm working on, I'm likely to break stuff and then need to fix the importer but all in all, looking good :)
I should note that as I refine some of the systems I'm working on, I'm likely to break stuff and then need to fix the importer but all in all, looking good :)
6858
The Pub / [Archive] Re: Logo Madness
« on August 3rd, 2011, 06:10 PM »
We're not above the law, but we will be ethical and measured in all that we do.
6859
The Pub / [Archive] Re: Logo Madness
« on August 2nd, 2011, 11:40 PM »
Yeah, I think I agree with that - having the text on two different lines distracts the brain in all the wrong kinds of ways and actually puts a touch of certainty on something I'd honestly prefer to be at least a little ambiguous ;)
6860
Features / Re: New revs - Public comments
« on August 2nd, 2011, 01:22 PM »Still, we're in a situation that reminds us that, sometimes, the amount of servers and configurations makes it hard to make software work everywhere without tweaking.
I understand that LC_CTYPE could be a problem with case manipulation. We'll have to keep that in mind... And yes, it never seemed to matter in the SMF world.
Here's how I'm considering the approach:
So, I needed something that would operate during the SD ticket load phase and then proceed to add a template in. Since I'm slightly lazy and had no desire to force yet another file to be loaded when the template was a very simple one, I just put the source and template in the same file.
I actually figure most mod authors would do the same if they could get away with it. Most mods don't bother trying to support all different themes, concerning themselves with template edits, or for bigger/independent stuff, a separate template file.
Embedding the template itself into the mod would prevent creating a separate file just for separation's sake because the point of MVC isn't about putting files randomly in different places to separate the code, it's a pattern: that you keep presentation and logic separate as far as possible, and even if you're mixing them in the same file, you're still logically separating them into separate functions; it would only be an issue semantically if you had just the template with the logic in it.
So, getting back to the point: I'd suggest we don't have it load files in template hooks. Any new template will require code to back it up anyway, which means you're going to be loading a file to engage the logic-powering hook anyway, and that new file can load a template if it wants, or it can embed the template if it wants. Then if the mod wants/needs theme specific changes for some random reason, it can be left to the mod author to make it happen if they so desire.
| 1. | A custom SD plugin, as it happened. |
6861
Features / Re: New revs - Public comments
« on August 2nd, 2011, 10:38 AM »Hmm... Only says "some versions of Windows". Never heard of that, really.
(I'm really pro-LC_TIME here. I don't see why we should deviate from the SMF implementation, apart from the fact that we're only executing setlocale once per page call now.)
Considering also that the number format is not managed through the locale anyway, the only reason remaining that actually matters is the possible incompatibility - but even then... it hasn't bothered SMF that I could find, so run with LC_TIME.
6862
Off-topic / Re: Dial Up BBS
« on August 2nd, 2011, 09:43 AM »
I know people who regularly use the term 'couple' to mean 3 or 4.
6863
Other software / Re: "Paid for" shit.
« on August 2nd, 2011, 09:43 AM »
You might even go so far as to say that it is a form of marketing.
6864
Off-topic / Re: Dial Up BBS
« on August 2nd, 2011, 09:25 AM »
It is a few... depends on your definition of few vs several vs some vs many, really, but the definitions are flexible :)
6865
Other software / Re: "Paid for" shit.
« on August 2nd, 2011, 09:24 AM »
I know, I know, pick me, pick me!
Here's a couple of clues:
The person who reported it was very adamant that he wasn't going to adhere to being told he couldn't use SMG on his site. And a very, very long, pointless and stupid argument ensued, and it was public too.
The person who I understand to have changed it is not the project manager and not a Customizer, and therefore should have had nothing the hell to do with it. That said, the Customizer team are the ones charged with maintaining the mod site and we all know how up to the task they are at present...
I'm not even surprised that either of the individuals involved are actually involved. I'm more annoyed that they won't 'fess up to it or at the very least bother to tell either of us what's going on. (Interesting point, then, why haven't they censored AeMe itself since last I saw of it, it had an active link here...)Quote from billy2 on August 2nd, 2011, 09:14 AM Yup, you called it pretty good. I still care - if I didn't, I probably wouldn't be here, would I? As I've said before, the entire scenario is a whole lot of mindfuck, but think about it: had Nao and I been involved in development rather than how it turned out, 2.0 would have been finished a whole lot sooner and with less bugs left in it. We would still probably have gone our own way at some point but it would have been with far less of a grudge, and far more of that we are too adventurous compared to the "I'm a forum" mindset SMF has.[1]
We can make great sweeping changes that affect many things - can you imagine, for example, if I'd proposed my changes to the ban system in SMF itself, and how it would be jumped on as 'that's not how we do things'?[2]
Here's a couple of clues:
The person who reported it was very adamant that he wasn't going to adhere to being told he couldn't use SMG on his site. And a very, very long, pointless and stupid argument ensued, and it was public too.
The person who I understand to have changed it is not the project manager and not a Customizer, and therefore should have had nothing the hell to do with it. That said, the Customizer team are the ones charged with maintaining the mod site and we all know how up to the task they are at present...
I'm not even surprised that either of the individuals involved are actually involved. I'm more annoyed that they won't 'fess up to it or at the very least bother to tell either of us what's going on. (Interesting point, then, why haven't they censored AeMe itself since last I saw of it, it had an active link here...)
After 45k+ posts at SM, whether he is a member or not and even after being treated like a twat, he will still have a place in his heart for the software,Quote from Nao/Gilles on July 31st, 2011, 11:03 PM Pete, you're still feeling too concerned about SMF.
Its a bit like a wayward child.......... whatever it does, you will still love it.
We can make great sweeping changes that affect many things - can you imagine, for example, if I'd proposed my changes to the ban system in SMF itself, and how it would be jumped on as 'that's not how we do things'?[2]
| 1. | Don't get me wrong, I have a certain amount of respect for that, because it means they know what they want and they want to keep it as a pure forum, so that they focus on that. |
| 2. | Note that I'm not trying to disparage them here; that response is a valid if not entirely desirable one, and it falls very much under the "if it isn't broken, don't fix it" mentality, even though it is my considered opinion that it is broken. |
6866
Features / Re: New revs - Public comments
« on August 2nd, 2011, 09:13 AM »It's a possibility, but is there any reason for using LC_ALL really?
Windows aside, which is buggy anyway and I wouldn't expect serious users to be running PHP on Windows as a consequence, setLocale is threaded, meaning that there are no outbound consequences for doing the switch as suggested; once it enters the CSS parser, it's going to remain there until it's done.
I'm happy to try it as suggested, especially since now I read up on it again, I don't see how we can make use of LC_COLLATE or LC_CTYPE because that has implications for users migrating from other systems (since those affect how strtolower is done and how string comparisons may be made, though equivalence checks shouldn't be affected) though some things like LC_MONETARY might be useful in places.
It's, unfortunately, a case of swings and roundabouts :/
6867
Off-topic / Re: Dial Up BBS
« on August 2nd, 2011, 09:02 AM »
Nas is 15 or 16 now, Dragooon's about the same IIRC...
On the other end of the scales, I'm 27 and Nao's a few years older than me...
On the other end of the scales, I'm 27 and Nao's a few years older than me...
6868
Off-topic / Re: Dial Up BBS
« on August 2nd, 2011, 01:22 AM »
All we need is a Time Lord to throw the scales off anyway ;)
6869
Features / Re: New revs - Public comments
« on August 2nd, 2011, 01:21 AM »
It's almost certainly the setLocale call that's been made which uses LC_ALL from what I remember, which means numbers will be formatted to the locale specified if possible.
Not sure how to fix that other than temporarily resetting the locale to the English default when entering the parser and resetting it back to the normal language on exit.
Not sure how to fix that other than temporarily resetting the locale to the English default when entering the parser and resetting it back to the normal language on exit.
6870
Features / Re: New revs - Public comments
« on August 2nd, 2011, 12:08 AM »I don't really see how it could hurt performance as long as we have a serious index on the status field...?
500m topics in a single board when that's all I had, really hurt compared to 1.5m topics split by three boards.
The more that can be kept out of the main table, or at least efficiently indexed the better. If we have two columns filtering the status, the index probably won't be that efficient - it would probably be better if we were to index on a single column with all four (approved/not approved/deleted/not deleted) states in a single column, it would probably index better, but benchmarking will tell us for sure.