Forums

Unfortunately no one can be told what FluxBB is - you have to see it for yourself.

You are not logged in.

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

elbekko
Former Developer
From: Leuven, Belgium
Registered: 2008-04-30
Posts: 1,132
Website

Discussion on 1.4

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 smile


Ben
SVN repository for my extensions - The thread
Quickmarks 0.5
“Question: How does a large software project get to be one year late? Answer: One day at a time!” - Fred Brooks

Offline

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

hcgtv
Member
From: Charlotte, NC
Registered: 2008-05-07
Posts: 466
Website

Re: Discussion on 1.4

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?

Offline

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

Paul
Developer
From: Wales, UK
Registered: 2008-04-27
Posts: 1,653

Re: Discussion on 1.4

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.


The only thing worse than finding a bug is knowing I created it in the first place.

Offline

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

Franz
Lead developer
From: Germany
Registered: 2008-05-13
Posts: 6,742
Website

Re: Discussion on 1.4

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.


fluxbb.de | develoPHP

"As code is more often read than written it's really important to write clean code."

Offline

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

hcgtv
Member
From: Charlotte, NC
Registered: 2008-05-07
Posts: 466
Website

Re: Discussion on 1.4

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.

Offline

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

sirena
Member
From: AU
Registered: 2008-05-10
Posts: 172

Re: Discussion on 1.4

Sounds like feature creep to me. smile

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.

Offline

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

Mpok
Member
From: France
Registered: 2008-05-12
Posts: 389

Re: Discussion on 1.4

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

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... sad
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.. sad)

Offline

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

elbekko
Former Developer
From: Leuven, Belgium
Registered: 2008-04-30
Posts: 1,132
Website

Re: Discussion on 1.4

@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 tongue

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


Ben
SVN repository for my extensions - The thread
Quickmarks 0.5
“Question: How does a large software project get to be one year late? Answer: One day at a time!” - Fred Brooks

Offline

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

Franz
Lead developer
From: Germany
Registered: 2008-05-13
Posts: 6,742
Website

Re: Discussion on 1.4

sirena wrote:

Sounds like feature creep to me. smile

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

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

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


fluxbb.de | develoPHP

"As code is more often read than written it's really important to write clean code."

Offline

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

zaher
Member
From: Damascus, Syria
Registered: 2008-07-12
Posts: 126
Website

Re: Discussion on 1.4

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

Offline

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

artoodetoo
Member
From: Far-Far-Away
Registered: 2008-05-11
Posts: 229

Re: Discussion on 1.4

Excellent plan! I like both ideas.

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


I'm not a fan of FluxBB way anymore.

Offline

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

blissend
FluxBB Donor
From: NY, USA
Registered: 2009-07-02
Posts: 30
Website

Re: Discussion on 1.4

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.

Offline

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

Meow
Member
From: New Taipei, Taiwan
Registered: 2008-05-10
Posts: 677
Website

Re: Discussion on 1.4

What will minor style changes be?

Offline

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

FSX
Former Developer
From: NL
Registered: 2008-05-09
Posts: 818
Website

Re: Discussion on 1.4

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.

Offline

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

artoodetoo
Member
From: Far-Far-Away
Registered: 2008-05-11
Posts: 229

Re: Discussion on 1.4

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


I'm not a fan of FluxBB way anymore.

Offline

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

elbekko
Former Developer
From: Leuven, Belgium
Registered: 2008-04-30
Posts: 1,132
Website

Re: Discussion on 1.4

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.


Ben
SVN repository for my extensions - The thread
Quickmarks 0.5
“Question: How does a large software project get to be one year late? Answer: One day at a time!” - Fred Brooks

Offline

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

Yeggor
Member
From: Moscow, Russia
Registered: 2008-12-28
Posts: 22

Re: Discussion on 1.4

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)

Offline

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

Franz
Lead developer
From: Germany
Registered: 2008-05-13
Posts: 6,742
Website

Re: Discussion on 1.4

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


fluxbb.de | develoPHP

"As code is more often read than written it's really important to write clean code."

Offline

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

Yeggor
Member
From: Moscow, Russia
Registered: 2008-12-28
Posts: 22

Re: Discussion on 1.4

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

Offline

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

Yeggor
Member
From: Moscow, Russia
Registered: 2008-12-28
Posts: 22

Re: Discussion on 1.4

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

Offline

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

Franz
Lead developer
From: Germany
Registered: 2008-05-13
Posts: 6,742
Website

Re: Discussion on 1.4

I wrote:

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

That is quite fundamental, is it not?


fluxbb.de | develoPHP

"As code is more often read than written it's really important to write clean code."

Offline

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

ridgerunner
Member
Registered: 2008-06-24
Posts: 183
Website

Re: Discussion on 1.4

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!

Offline

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

Paul
Developer
From: Wales, UK
Registered: 2008-04-27
Posts: 1,653

Re: Discussion on 1.4

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.


The only thing worse than finding a bug is knowing I created it in the first place.

Offline

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

ridgerunner
Member
Registered: 2008-06-24
Posts: 183
Website

Re: Discussion on 1.4

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?

Offline

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

elbekko
Former Developer
From: Leuven, Belgium
Registered: 2008-04-30
Posts: 1,132
Website

Re: Discussion on 1.4

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.


Ben
SVN repository for my extensions - The thread
Quickmarks 0.5
“Question: How does a large software project get to be one year late? Answer: One day at a time!” - Fred Brooks

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB