Forums

A few things that both parts of the discussion need to be aware of:
- This is not a pointless discussion. I can't understand why it would be
- Punbb is not really ahead, there are working betas of fluxbb 1.3. Strictly speaking the main difference is what one call final. I guess punbb doesn't hold it back labeling whatever they have at the moment with a major version name. This has advantages though. It holds together a reasonable user base and allows some compatibility freeze at least for sometime. We waited so long for fluxbb hooks freeze that it never came, that cannot be better.

I would add to that a flexible cross-version extension system and a template engine.
Glad I am not the only one pointing this out.

Despite the speech style which I consider a bit too harsh considering all the time invested on this project by volunteers, I agree with this.

4 years is a long time. Go and check the repositories of open source PHP projects in 2005... we are in a different time now.

markc, you totally misunderstood me. I never said that an OOP approach has whatever relation to the MVC pattern.
I sugested a full OOP approach simply because polymorphism can be an alternative to the current 1.3 hook system if the last reveals itself as obsolete, but to be honest I still don't understand if the hooks system is incapable of providing the desirable flexibility because of the way it works or because being used in the wrong way. And I wonder if putting hooks only in a core free of HTML output wwould solve the problem or if another solution other than hooks is necessary.

I have no objection to your design suggestion, but how does that deals with cross-version plugins? I mean, I still don't understand how you intend to keep pluging installed after a core update.

I am not a OOP zealot, in fact one thing that deeply annoys me is the way a simple paradigm is presented as the holly grail of programming. But I think you went all the way across to the other extreme. The OOP paradigm and its implementations do open some doors and solve some problems in _some_ practical cases.

FSX,  I was in fact aware of that... but 25 steps for having it up and running... that's not the way I use my computer. But thank you anyway.

Does any of those supports code snippets with placeholders?

Notepad++ has a plugin called quicktext that works just like gedit codesnippets, but that plugin is not available with support for UTF, which sucks because 95% of the files I edit use UTF8.

Markc, an MVC design doesn't have to make use of an object oriented approach.
What you are doing is quickly throwing down you template system and in fact separate the view from the rest. Break the reast into data access logic and 'core logic' and there you go, your application follows the MVC design pattern.

Now, that is cool. But what I am most worried about is that ATM there is no solution on the table to make fluxbb fully extensible other than going and hack the source code manually. The code might be very simple and easy to follow, but have you thought about the fact that you need to do it every single time you update the core?
Come on... am I the only one that thinks a fully extensible core is a must have?

You mean, hooks in general are not the way to go, or is it necessary something in addition to hooks?
Hooks are becoming quite common in other projects out there.
Would a flexible template system help in here, in the way that would leave big HTML bloks away from the hooks?

I guess another option would be a full OOP approach where an entry point before the load of any class would allow extension developers to override (or extend) any class before any object is loaded.
Of course, this requires a ground up rewrite and a new architecture.

(sorry, that was some broken english)

I don't know what you mean by that. But I tell you what:
head up to http://milw0rm.com and search for PHPBB and for SMF and simple machines forum. Go back to 2006 and you'll find a huge amount of vulnerabilities in phpbb

I believe so. I didn't said anything on contrary.

phpbb installations get hacked all the time. Being popular was art of the reason why, buy they had many bug holes regardless their popularity.
SMF for example also got hugely popular but it never had nearly as many security issues as phpbb.

This title is misleading. A more accurate title would be: "phpbb website gets hacked by an attacker"

phpbb itself was not vulnerable in this case.

I think i might have asked this before but I am not sure I got an answer. What were the major issues with the extension system that made it not so viable? Which alternatives are there and how are they more viable?

Not being ironic nor sarcastic, just a bit surprised.

Just one linux user so far

Anyways.. guess I am the only one with a ghetto desktop

http://bayimg.com/NAnkGAAbE

I like it simple and nice

Well.. any application built on top of one of many php MVC frameworks out there.
To be honest I can't point one PHP project that follows a strict MVC design, but I don't know the source code ha of many applications, specially when it comes to newer applications that poped up after the MVC hysteria.

Sorr I cannot be so specific... google -> php mvc

I wouldn't agree with the looks, but I definitely  include myself in this group of people:

I have this project which I intend to build on top of fluxbb. Version 1.3 with its extension system would be cool, but there this version won't make it to a stable release that's sad. Sure version 2.0 will be even better but I am afraid it will take longer than I can/want to wait.

That being said, I am very curious about 2.0. Like... how much of 1.3 codebase will be used, what are the new features mentioned in the announcement, etc.

Well, all the glitches on PHP and MYSQL usability on windows were actually one of the strongest reasons that made me dismiss windows completely two years ago.
I was OK with Xamp lite which was very portable and stuff, but once I wanted to install a PHP module, a pear one, whatever, there were always troubles of some kind.

I find the package systems with dependence management used in most linux distros nowadays, a lot more reliable. Ironic as it might be, they end up being more user friendly too.

Yes, one could write fluxbb entirely like that. Not the most practical/usable/realistic approach, but it would for sure be a cool proof of concept. Sort of just jamming with limits of the technology

I too, if I should be honest, don't look at this as a must-have. In fact is not even something I would strongly recommend for fluxbb. I just thought it was worth the discussion, that's all. I mean, the extension system hasn't been really tested, one cannot tell for sure what will be its most restrictive characteristics without getting feedback from a reasonably large user base. Who knows if or when this, or whatever other feature, will be necessary?

I can think of some situations where this could be useful, but they're really few. A hosted service for example, could take some advantage of this. What I had in mind was absolutely _not_ slaping a sexy statement on the feature list.

The performance issue you mentioned is for sure the Achiles' heel of this model. If I should think about it more carefully, I would agree with you after all, It would not fit so well in a software that aims to be fast and lightweight rather than having all those features that 1 out of 1000 users need.

Sorry then, it got impressed by a practical implementation of a rather cool concept.