Discussion on 1.4

elbekko · 2009-06-30 17:38:29

Right, since the next 1.4 release just might be close, us developers have been discussing a thing or two, and I'd like to bring part of this discussion to the community.

First up is the parser. We've been toying with the idea of implementing 1.3's parser in 1.4. It's cleaner, faster, and just overall better. The downside to this is that some minor style changes will need to be made, which may break user styles.
We'd really like your input on this

hcgtv · 2009-06-30 18:14:40

If it's a drop in replacement, where 1.4 is not delayed much more, then I vote for yes.

As for the styles, just a quick readme or instructions to update your site is plenty.

What are the other thing or two that was being discussed?

Paul · 2009-06-30 18:38:05

If you add the class entry-content to the divs wrapping messages you should just be able to use the css from line 1518 onwards of the 1.3 stylesheet. You then just remove anything descending from div.postmsg from the existing stylesheet.

Franz · 2009-06-30 20:26:23

Another idea discussed before (also by the community) was an improved subscription system. As far as I know, the latest conclusion was to create a page that shows all posts a user (the one who logged in) has subscribed to.

hcgtv · 2009-07-01 04:53:17

Paul, that sounds easy enough, if a new.speedier.faster.whizbang parser is the reward, not a major sacrifice.

lie2815, I've always wanted to tag threads as important, not so much to be emailed about every post, but rather as a bookmark of sorts, a page you visit where you see your favorite topics and if they've had activity.

sirena · 2009-07-01 06:34:03

Sounds like feature creep to me.

But if implementing the 1.3 parser only has minor CSS implications, I guess that's OK.

But if it has other implications for 1.4's code compatibility with 1.2, that may not be OK.

You don't want to end up with a mess - part 1.2, a bit of 1.3, and bits of new 1.4 , but which works with neither 1.2 or 1.3.

Mpok · 2009-07-01 07:20:44

Hmm....
I'm not sure it's a good idea (but feel free to prove me it is.. )

My problem is NOT css issues.

I don't know WHAT are the changes u want to do, and HOW it will affect the code (of the parser).
In France, 90% (maybe even more) of the users of PunBB/FluxBB (1.2.x) use a mod named "PunToolBar" which provides easy access to bbcodes (using javascript).
There are also some mods which add some features (some buttons) to that bar.

All that, is based on the actual parser (in terms of installation and working).
If the "core" of the parser is changed, the mod(s) will not working anymore...
It obviously depends on the changes u want to make to the parser :
- if the change is not "major", maybe that will not change anything for us, and that's ok...
- if the change concerns the principles of parser.php, that's a problem...

I'm not asking u to take ur decision ONLY from French users (and those in other countries who use that mod) needs.
But u could donwload the mod, test it with actual parser and new one, and tell me if :
- it will work without a problem.
- i will have to make some minor changes to the mods (i don't care about numbering of the lines, i only care about code itself).
- the mod is obsolete with ur new parser (worst situation.. )

elbekko · 2009-07-01 12:54:23

@Mpok:
Well, I don't see how a toolbar mod would break due to the inner workings of the parser changing. The BBCode won't change or anything, just how it is handled. Putting in the new parser is basically plug and play, and Paul has the code done already for a personal project.

Now, I can take a look at PunToolbar for you, but I have a feeling it won't break a thing. If it does, it's probably made in the wrong way

@sirena:
I wouldn't call it feature creep, it's just a few thoughts we want the opinion of the community on As I said, it should be basically plug and play, so no code other than the parser would change.

Franz · 2009-07-01 13:03:59

sirena wrote:

Sounds like feature creep to me.

I think sirena is refering to the subscription page. And I don't agree

EDIT: I do agree. I had forgotten how far this was going to go...

Last edited by Franz (2009-07-01 13:12:00)

zaher · 2009-07-01 13:29:41

Just I hope in css not use a minus(negative) values(positions).

artoodetoo · 2009-07-02 02:18:52

Excellent plan! I like both ideas.

Last edited by artoodetoo (2009-07-02 02:41:06)

blissend · 2009-07-02 17:30:21

I've been following punbb/fluxbb for a long time now and just now decided to register and say I agree with hcgtv that if its a drop in replacement that doesn't delay 1.4 much more then my vote is yes.

Meow · 2009-07-03 04:58:39

What will minor style changes be?

FSX · 2009-07-03 08:14:38

Meow wrote:

What will minor style changes be?

If the 1.3 parsers is built-in 1.4. Spacing between paragraphs and some styling for lists, but that's only what I tested it could be more, but I think not.

artoodetoo · 2009-07-04 05:16:58

1.2 have not [ list ] bbcode, that is why 1.2's styles cannot show <ul> and <ol> in postmsg correctly.
Am I right?

elbekko · 2009-07-04 13:41:08

Yes, but as FSX said, there is also a slight issue with paragraphs that needs to be fixed. Still, the style changes would be very minor, and could probably be put in base.css so custom styles don't break.

Yeggor · 2009-07-08 10:29:39

I like the ideas.
I don't know what is "parser", but I noticed that 1.3 is faster (and maybe "smoother") than 1.2

Last edited by Yeggor (2009-07-08 10:35:20)

Franz · 2009-07-08 10:30:29

The parser is the piece of code that interprets the BBCode.

Yeggor · 2009-07-08 10:38:09

Oh, so can it affect speed and "lightness" of the forum? I thought the parser is smth fundamental, deep in the core

Yeggor · 2009-07-08 10:40:31

Anyway, I tested both versions myself and looked at other forums and 1.3 always seemed faster, though it's more complicated

Franz · 2009-07-08 10:55:18

I wrote:

The parser is the piece of code that interprets the BBCode.

That is quite fundamental, is it not?

ridgerunner · 2009-07-11 03:37:51

I vote no.

For starters its feature creep and you promised this would not happen. And besides, the 1.2 parser code is smaller, cleaner and much more readable than 1.3, particularly with regard to the implementation of regular expressions (e.g. Just take a look at the preparse_bbcode() function for comparison). The few regexes that I took a close look at in the 1.3 parser were poorly written at best. (This is one of the main reasons I abandoned using 1.3). Note that the 1.3 parser has twice the bloat (28KB vs 14KB) and yet is poorly commented.

The 1.2 code is superior IMHO. Its not broken, don't fix it!

Paul · 2009-07-11 03:42:27

It depends what you mean by broken. It doesn't handle the alt attribute properly on images and uses linebreaks instead of paragraphs. To me thats broken.

ridgerunner · 2009-07-11 05:04:02

Yes, if 1.2 is broken, by all means, fix it. Does 1.2 actualy generate invalid markup? Or is it just that it does not give you enough hooks for CSS styling? What exactly is the problem with the ALT attribute of the IMG tag?

elbekko · 2009-07-11 12:48:27

ridgerunner wrote:

I vote no.
For starters its feature creep and you promised this would not happen. And besides, the 1.2 parser code is smaller, cleaner and much more readable than 1.3, particularly with regard to the implementation of regular expressions (e.g. Just take a look at the preparse_bbcode() function for comparison). The few regexes that I took a close look at in the 1.3 parser were poorly written at best. (This is one of the main reasons I abandoned using 1.3). Note that the 1.3 parser has twice the bloat (28KB vs 14KB) and yet is poorly commented.
The 1.2 code is superior IMHO. Its not broken, don't fix it!

Yet it isn't. For 1.3 we worked on making the parser faster, as it was the biggest slowdown in the whole code. We're now porting it to 1.4 (which is nearly done) to provide this speed boost. What you think of the code and what it actually is are very different things obviously.
And I'd hardly call it feature creep if you're replacing instead of adding.

Forums

#1 2009-06-30 17:38:29

Discussion on 1.4

#2 2009-06-30 18:14:40

Re: Discussion on 1.4

#3 2009-06-30 18:38:05

Re: Discussion on 1.4

#4 2009-06-30 20:26:23

Re: Discussion on 1.4

#5 2009-07-01 04:53:17

Re: Discussion on 1.4

#6 2009-07-01 06:34:03

Re: Discussion on 1.4

#7 2009-07-01 07:20:44

Re: Discussion on 1.4

#8 2009-07-01 12:54:23

Re: Discussion on 1.4

#9 2009-07-01 13:03:59

Re: Discussion on 1.4

#10 2009-07-01 13:29:41

Re: Discussion on 1.4

#11 2009-07-02 02:18:52

Re: Discussion on 1.4

#12 2009-07-02 17:30:21

Re: Discussion on 1.4

#13 2009-07-03 04:58:39

Re: Discussion on 1.4

#14 2009-07-03 08:14:38

Re: Discussion on 1.4

#15 2009-07-04 05:16:58

Re: Discussion on 1.4

#16 2009-07-04 13:41:08

Re: Discussion on 1.4

#17 2009-07-08 10:29:39

Re: Discussion on 1.4

#18 2009-07-08 10:30:29

Re: Discussion on 1.4

#19 2009-07-08 10:38:09

Re: Discussion on 1.4

#20 2009-07-08 10:40:31

Re: Discussion on 1.4

#21 2009-07-08 10:55:18

Re: Discussion on 1.4

#22 2009-07-11 03:37:51

Re: Discussion on 1.4

#23 2009-07-11 03:42:27

Re: Discussion on 1.4

#24 2009-07-11 05:04:02

Re: Discussion on 1.4

#25 2009-07-11 12:48:27

Re: Discussion on 1.4

Board footer