Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

You need/want an older version of sNews ? Download an older/unsupported version here.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4]

Author Topic: Future Features  (Read 10876 times)

Keyrocks

  • Doug
  • ULTIMATE member
  • ******
  • Karma: 449
  • Posts: 6019
  • Semantically Challenged
    • snews.ca
Re: Future Features
« Reply #45 on: December 30, 2009, 07:28:56 PM »

at this moment  m too busy with my job so i m very limited with free time.soon i m going to post picture about admin section.i think also comments need to be worked out too.i have some plan but if Luka jump in we may start total new direction with snews.If not then we need to work something else.We need to move this on our own with Luka or without.

As always, please feel free to share your ideas with everyone else, Sasha.
Logged
Do it now... later may not come.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
sNews 1.6 MESU | sNews 1.6 MEMU

nukpana

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: 71
  • Posts: 663
Re: Future Features
« Reply #46 on: December 31, 2009, 03:40:13 PM »

Just the front page, Sasha noted it in a thread: http://snewscms.com/forum/index.php?topic=8859.msg62708#msg62708

Thanks for the reminde...  ;D I hadn't notice the changes... I seldom view that page (always use the link to Forums directly).
Changes seems limited to minor restyling with addition of a link-box to solucija.com... to get some more traffic over there.

I would think a new sNews version that is new and fresh ( hint hint ), that could possibly bring in more people from outside the forum regulars, would help bring in more traffic (equaling more $$$ - my assumption for the reasoning of the link back ).  Putting up Solucija and sNewsCMS adverts in regular Web/Programming/CMS/Design sites could help too bring more traffic.  Locally, maybe adding links to all sNews pages, in addition to adding fresh updated content ( hint hint - people keep coming back for fresh content - ), would too, help get more traffic.  Also, if Luka began noting here in the forums of new updates of new templates, with a nudge or two for the paid sponsored ones, can also help out getting more traffic to your site.

If you don't like those ideas.... Another idea is to offer (Insert Popular CMS like WP) templates in addition to your site to help get more traffic...

Just a REALLY dumb question... why isn't sNews even noted anywhere on Solucija.com?
« Last Edit: December 31, 2009, 07:10:06 PM by nukpana »
Logged

centered

  • Guest
Re: Future Features
« Reply #47 on: January 26, 2010, 02:20:57 PM »

Just a thought for "future features" to consider:

Remove any admin functions/links/code from the public page.
Why? That's what the admin backend is for.  If you don't have a big site then I can see the point for current functionality, but for something bigger, you can easily review what is in the backend for what is needed.
Logged

Sven

  • ULTIMATE member
  • ******
  • Karma: 88
  • Posts: 2029
  • Chasing MY bugs!
    • hiseo.fr - rédacteur Web
Re: Future Features
« Reply #48 on: January 26, 2010, 03:15:16 PM »

I say yes and Fred too.

centered

  • Guest
Re: Future Features
« Reply #49 on: January 26, 2010, 05:55:38 PM »

Fred's example is a bad one against what I propose.  I propose almost complete separation (and I don't remember if this is the first time I noted it either...)

I mean things like removing these:

 - in most public functions...
Code: [Select]
$qwr = !_ADMIN ? ' AND a.visible=\'YES\'' : '';If something is not visible to the public, then I can view it in the admin section. (ie make preview smarter)

 - in extras for example this wouldn't be needed:
Code: [Select]
$visiblity = $r['visible'] == 'YES' ?
        '<a href="'._SITE.'?action=process&amp;task=hide&amp;item=snews_articles&amp;id='.$r['id'].'&amp;back='.$url.'">'.l('hide').'</a>' :
      l('hidden').' ( <a href="'._SITE.'?action=process&amp;task=show&amp;item=snews_articles&amp;id='.$r['id'].'&amp;back='.$url.'">'.l('show').'</a> )';
echo _ADMIN ? '<p><a href="'._SITE.'?action=admin_article&amp;id='.$r['id'].'" title="'.l('edit').' '.$r['seftitle'].'">
'.l('edit').'</a>'.' '.l('divider').' '.$visiblity.'</p>' : '';
Same thing, I can view the extra in the admin and edit it from there
Logged

centered

  • Guest
Re: Future Features
« Reply #50 on: January 26, 2010, 07:52:54 PM »

If I am viewing the site, I would to like to see it how Jane and Joe sees it, not how I would logged in. Second, it allows for slightly cleaner code.

Quote
I personally don't see a need to separate admin links (like Edit and Hide).  I like the ability to change things quickly.
For small site, I would agree, but bigger sites, I cannot.

Quote
I also feel that if sNews is going to try to stick with other CMS's then taking away functionality/features isn't going to help.
If you mean compete with other CMS's? I checked out some of the bigger named cms/blogs on opensourcecms and none have this functionality. Hence my suggestion to remove it and make a stronger admin backend.

Quote
taking away functionality/features isn't going to help.
How do you then propose structuring the proposed 1.8 version ? There's been alot of discussion lately, it would be cool to hear your thoughts and expertise as well.


Logged

centered

  • Guest
Re: Future Features
« Reply #51 on: January 26, 2010, 09:47:46 PM »

Quote
If I am viewing the site, I would to like to see it how Jane and Joe sees it, not how I would logged in. Second, it allows for slightly cleaner code.
Understood, I like to see the content as Jane & Joe too, however, adding a couple of links below the article, IMO, is unobtrusive.  Second, I'm all for cleaner code too....but if the code is a mere 5 lines (which can likely be cleaned up to do the same thing) and gives easier access to editing, then I see no need to remove it.
I can agree there slightly. It can be refactored so something the extra code above to something like:
Code: (http://snewscms.com/forum/index.php?topic=8391.msg61704#msg61704) [Select]
if (_ADMIN) {
$edit = edit_link( $_ID );
$vis = visible_link( $_ID, $_VISIBLE, currCategory() );
$edit_link =  $edit .' '. l('divider') .' '. $vis;
}

// Using these functions:
// Current Category for show/hide back link
function currCategory() {
global $articleSEF, $categorySEF, $subcatSEF, $_POS;
switch( TRUE ) {
case ( $_POS == 1 && $articleSEF ):
$currCat = $categorySEF.'/'.$subcatSEF;
break;
case ( !$_POS && $subcatSEF ):
$currCat = $categorySEF.'/'.$subcatSEF;
break;
case ( $categorySEF ):
$currCat = $categorySEF;
break;
case ( empty( $categorySEF ) ):
$currCat = '';
break;
}
return $currCat;
}

// Build the show/hide admin link
function visible_link( $id, $vis, $category ) {
if (!_ADMIN) return;
$vis = $vis == 'YES' ? 'hide' : 'show';
$qs = array(
'action' => 'process',
'task' => $vis,
'item' => 'snews_articles',
'id' => $id,
'back' => $category
);
$qs = http_build_query( $qs, '', '&amp;' );
return '<a href="'. _SITE .'?'. $qs .'">'. l( $vis ) .'</a>';
}

// Build the edit link
function edit_link( $id ) {
if (!_ADMIN) return;
$qs = array(
'action' => 'admin_article',
'id' => $id
);
$qs = http_build_query( $qs, '', '&amp;' );
return '<a href="'._SITE.'?'. $qs .'">'.l('edit').'</a>';
}

Quote
Quote
Quote
I also feel that if sNews is going to try to stick with other CMS's then taking away functionality/features isn't going to help.
If you mean compete with other CMS's? I checked out some of the bigger named cms/blogs on opensourcecms and none have this functionality. Hence my suggestion to remove it and make a stronger admin backend.
I guess you can say compete.  Quite frankly, I don't think sNews really can compete & maintain it's light status.  But I think we can try to keep up.  I tried Drupal, I have admin rights to a WordPress site & they both have Edit links on pages (on Drupal far more obtrusive than sNews).  I tried Joomla on opensourcecms , but was unable to tell if the changes that I made in the admin area appeared on the test site there....so I can't say one way or another on that.  But I think we can agree that Drupal & WP are pretty big in the CMS department.  I think that a stronger back end is a great idea.  But, like I said, a couple of links to make for easier editing do not get in the way.
Actually I do think sNews can compete and maintain its light status, probably even better, but that requires more work and support. Right now, it cannot at it's current state.

I tried Drupal, and it using 3 views confused me. so I wrote it off. I tried CMS Made Simple, functionality is not there, Joomla, no, Modx, no.  Wordpress, I didn't try, but I did see it present after looking.

Quote
Quote
Quote
taking away functionality/features isn't going to help.
How do you then propose structuring the proposed 1.8 version ? There's been alot of discussion lately, it would be cool to hear your thoughts and expertise as well.
I'll have to get a few extra hours to do some reading before I reply  :)
You don't really need a few hours. I can sum it up like this:

Many view 1.7 as bloated and cannot be improved upon. 
1.7 has also been out for more than a year now and as Joost suggested, releases shouldn't be no more than a year apart.
In order to improve on that features and functionality would need to be removed to allow better simplicity, readability, and functionality ( on the function level for expandability ) for the users of sNews. Joost noted this should be more for front end developers (see below)
The thread "Improve a function a week" is one that has shown there to be alot of improvement can be made for 1.7.

I personally believe, it can be improved further than that (at least for front end development is concerned), but Joost has suggested that a 1.8 version shouldn't be too much of a rewrite.

I query you because a, you are noted as a developer of sNews, so your word and work is highly respected to others here.  Please review, make an assessment, and respond back.
Logged

Keyrocks

  • Doug
  • ULTIMATE member
  • ******
  • Karma: 449
  • Posts: 6019
  • Semantically Challenged
    • snews.ca
Re: Future Features
« Reply #52 on: January 26, 2010, 10:18:14 PM »

I agree with all of Bob's responses (2 posts up).
I nominate both Equilni & Nukpana - and anyone else who has nominated Equilni & Nukpana's threads closely - to form the 1.8 team and produce the 'cleaned-up' package.

In doing so, those who clean up the functions should also do all pre-release testing, one function at a time, to ensure they continue to function well as they should. There's no need to post every function on the Forums (as was done in cleaning up one function a week).

If we can get a version of sNews with the changes that have been made to the functions in that thread (as I stated above, so long as they don't change the database much/main functionality/maintain backward compatibility), improve on it more, then release that as 1.8

Just do the changes in one package, exchange it between team members, and when it is completed (no more changes required) and running well... then make it available to the rest of the Dudes for downloading and test-running.

Meanwhile, the rest of us can continue working on our personal projects until the big day for 1.8 arrives.  8)
« Last Edit: January 26, 2010, 10:20:26 PM by Keyrocks »
Logged
Do it now... later may not come.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
sNews 1.6 MESU | sNews 1.6 MEMU

centered

  • Guest
Re: Future Features
« Reply #53 on: January 26, 2010, 10:29:10 PM »

@ Bob - So then you are in agreement that functionality should be removed (contradicting you previous post if I may add, and if so can you contribute as to what you think would be removed?), and refactorization is needed.  I am assuming correctly that you will be participating with the refactoring/dev of 1.8?  There is still a great deal of work to be done help is needed and required. Comments needs a huge overhaul.

@ Doug, equilni and nukpana are the same person.... it's only here do I have split personalities.
Logged

Keyrocks

  • Doug
  • ULTIMATE member
  • ******
  • Karma: 449
  • Posts: 6019
  • Semantically Challenged
    • snews.ca
Re: Future Features
« Reply #54 on: January 26, 2010, 10:31:33 PM »

@ Doug, equilni and nukpana are the same person.... it's only here do I have split personalities.

I know, Jason... I know.  ;D
Logged
Do it now... later may not come.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
sNews 1.6 MESU | sNews 1.6 MEMU

centered

  • Guest
Re: Future Features
« Reply #55 on: January 26, 2010, 10:36:16 PM »

Quote
After that....2.0, which I think should be a complete overhaul....maybe based on the work that Luka has done, if he decides to share it
I can only assume he will not share what he has.  I hope he can come out and just say that he doesn't have anything and say what i have been assuming - he has let sNews evolve on it's own and he is keeping out of the day to day dealings and development. I think he feels he left sNews in the hands of capable people otherwise he would still be here.
Logged

Fred K

  • Still trying to learn stuff
  • ULTIMATE member
  • ******
  • Karma: 130
  • Posts: 2728
    • Personal
Re: Future Features
« Reply #56 on: January 28, 2010, 07:12:47 PM »

Can I just say that I think admin/content splitting as I suggested it in that mod Philippe pointed to should be just that: a mod. It should be left up to each and ever'one if they want a unified site (along the original sNews lines, which I can like on one level) or if they want a split site (which I like on another level). But then, as Jason said, his suggestion --which I like and I think I've said so before-- is about something else. I don't really get the hiding stuff either, but then I don't have any tall sites.

(I wouldn't use the word "bad" though... It's a good mod, it is I tell ya'! :D)
Logged

nukpana

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: 71
  • Posts: 663
Re: Future Features
« Reply #57 on: January 29, 2010, 12:06:28 AM »

Right Fread, perhaps I need to give clarification.  What I suggested is that if the user wants admin links, then they should put it thier template, not have the system serve it for them like this simple psuedo code below:

sNews -
function post_list() {
 return array of posts with id, title, text
}

user template:
$post = post_list();
foreach( $post as $p ) {
<h2>$p['title']</h2>
<p>$p['text']</p>
<p>edit_link($p['id'])</p>
<p>show_infoline()</p>
}

Live code would be this - from the improve a function thread:
Code: (snews.php) [Select]
function extra_list( $mode ) {
global $categorySEF, $_ID, $_catID, $_POS;

$ext = array();

$mode = ( !empty( $mode ) )
? " AND extraid = (
SELECT id
FROM ". _PRE ."extras
WHERE seftitle = '". strtolower( $mode ) ."'
)"
: " AND extraid = 1";

$vis = _ADMIN
? ' AND visible = \'YES\''
: '';

// for categories, subcategories and articles. -1 is all categories
$category = $_catID || ($_ID && $_POS == 1)
? ' category IN (-1, '. $_catID .', (
SELECT subcat
FROM '. _PRE .'categories
WHERE id = "'. $_catID .'"
) ) '
: '';
// For pages
switch( true ){ // 0 is all pages
// For user made pages
case ( $_ID && $_POS == 3 ) :
$page = ' page_extra IN ( 0, '. $_ID .' )';
break;
// for admin pages
case (
in_array( $categorySEF, l('cat_listSEF') ) ||
( _ADMIN && isset( $_GET['action'] ) )
):
$page = ' page_extra = 0';
break;
// Home Page. -1 is designated in 1.7 as the home page
case ( empty( $categorySEF ) || substr( $categorySEF, 0, 2) == l('paginator') ) :
$page = ' page_extra IN ( 0, -1 )';
break;
}
// One or the other, not both
$sqlIN = !empty($page)
? $page
: $category;

$query = 'SELECT
id, title, seftitle, text, category, extraid, page_extra,
position, displaytitle, visible
FROM '. _PRE .'articles
WHERE position = 2
AND published = 1
'. $mode . $vis . ' AND '. $sqlIN;
$result = mysql_query( $query );
while ( $r = mysql_fetch_assoc($result) ) {
if ($r['displaytitle'] != 'YES') {
unset( $r['title'] );
}
$r['text'] = file_include($r['text'], 9999000);
$ext[] = $r;
}
return $ext;
}

New file for my template functions
Code: [Select]
function extra($mode = '') {
$list = extra_list($mode);
foreach( $list as $k => $v ) {
echo '<div class="clearer">';
if (isset($v['title'])) echo '<h4>'. $v['title'] .'</h4>';
echo $v['text'];
if (_ADMIN) {
$edit =  edit_link( $v['id'] );
$vis = visible_link( $v['id'], $v['visible'] );
$edit_link =  ' '.$edit .' '. l('divider') .' '. $vis;
echo '<p>'. $edit_link .'</p>';
}
echo '</div>';
}
}
No need for the styleit code and I choice to include the admin links for the template

I, the user would decide if I want the link, not the system.  Additionally, I could style it and place it without going through mounds of code to get to it.  It's about making everyone's life easier IMO.



EDIT -----------------------------------------------------------------------

Wordpress does the exact same functionality I propose.  It is like an opt in - you want it, here. If not, then no worries:

wp-content/themes/default/single.php - Single Post Template Line 55
Code: [Select]
<?php edit_post_link('Edit this entry','','.'); ?>
Links to wp-includes/link-template.php Line 723
Documented here: http://codex.wordpress.org/Template_Tags/edit_post_link

Code: [Select]
function edit_post_link( $link = null, $before = '', $after = '', $id = 0 ) {
if ( !$post = &get_post( $id ) )
return;

if ( !$url = get_edit_post_link( $post->ID ) )
return;

if ( null === $link )
$link = __('Edit This');

$link = '<a class="post-edit-link" href="' . $url . '" title="' . esc_attr( __( 'Edit post' ) ) . '">' . $link . '</a>';
echo $before . apply_filters( 'edit_post_link', $link, $post->ID ) . $after;
}
« Last Edit: January 31, 2010, 01:38:34 PM by nukpana »
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]