sNews Forum

General Category => Miscellaneous Discussion => Topic started by: centered on October 14, 2009, 06:02:19 pm

Title: New version.. maybe?
Post by: centered on October 14, 2009, 06:02:19 pm
There is some new activitiy going on here in the forums for a possible new version.  While this is not a formal announcement, I would like the attention drawn here and to other threads.

This possible new version, not 2.0, sorry, is planned to be more streamlined than the current 1.7.  Some members have expressed concerns regarding the size and complexity of 1.7 and there is alot of talk to fix these issues.

If you note the "Improve one function a week" (http://snewscms.com/forum/index.php?topic=8391.0) thread, skian and I have been posting refactored coded for 1.7.  I ask anyone to continue to participate in that thread as it will be looked at for testing and possible implementation. 

I would also like to point out the "Least favorite features of 1.7" (http://snewscms.com/forum/index.php?topic=8707.msg61706#msg61706) thread. Moving forward from 1.7, we have to reduce it's feature set as this helps the refactoring of code.  I really hope every 1.7 user participates as this will be another thread to look at for testing and review.

Joost is also dropped a mod for non-mod rewrite environments and Fred maybe working on a much needed reworking of the HTML in the admin section.  Please help test all of this and report back. 

I would like to keep ALL further discussion in this thread - the team as well. 
Title: Re: New version.. maybe?
Post by: Sasha on October 15, 2009, 05:38:02 am
i never liked snews 1.7 from beginning.snews need one core file with better admin interface and comments need reply function also email form need stand alone.example i want to use email form in my front page or any page i wish.with this user have more freedom and is simple.archive need to be better organizing too.do we need 1.7b or new 2.0?
Title: Re: New version.. maybe?
Post by: centered on October 15, 2009, 10:04:00 am
 - One Core File
Well it has one core file.  The javascript and language file was taken out, somewhat understandably. 

I would agree if you noted the file structure could be better organized by default. Perhaps changing it?

root
 - htaccess
 - index.php (or make this the snews core...)
 - readme.html
   sNewsCore
   - snews.php
   - snews.js
     lang
      - EN.php
   sNewsUser
     files
     template
         templateName
          - index.php
          - style.css

 - Better Admin Interface (CSS?)
Don't disagree there.

 - Threaded Comments
Maybe for 2.0.  I like this as well.  I also like comments to be a stand alone add on....

 - Stand alone email form
Untested, but why wouldn't it work now? Just add it to the template and comment out the contact pages.

 - Better organized archive
How so? explain
Title: Re: New version.. maybe?
Post by: Fred K on October 15, 2009, 11:41:26 am
Just a short comment before I have to go do boring stuff: standalone email form is perfectly possible, I use one often. Only dependency it has (iirc) is the sendmail function towards the end of snews.php (which of course needs to stay within snews.php since it does its thing on other bits besides contact). I guess the question is if having contact() as standalone is something the vocal majority wants or not.
(I'm one who would want it.)
Title: Re: New version.. maybe?
Post by: centered on October 15, 2009, 01:44:57 pm
Quote
I guess the question is if having contact() as standalone is something the vocal majority wants or not.
(I'm one who would want it.)

Having the function standalone is fine.  Removing a few lines for links and one for center. Ok.  Hearing from Joost:
Quote from: http://snewscms.com/forum/index.php?topic=8707.msg61719#msg61719
Anything that allows an admin to use php: such as func and include in db generated text.

So then having contact stand alone, staying in the system, would have to be template dependent and up to the user to add it - (can't use function extra either to add for certain pages)
if (empty($categorySEF) ) contact();

If that's the case.... I would rather see a stand alone of the following  - to be taken out of the core and have as a official addons:
 - Contact
 - Archive
 - Sitemap
 - Seach
 - RSS
 - Anything else that is usually template dependent (title, pages, categories, etc)

The thinking is, as I have noted before in 2.0 discussions,if it is subjectable( to the front end engineer, as shown here) , then it is not a core item.  A core item is what makes the system work. One person may want a different contact form, or show rss differently, maybe they want drop down categories instead of the way it is.  I don't know that and neither does anyone else:

To continue to illustrate and show this is not a total rewrite!!

root
 - htaccess
 - index.php (or make this the snews core...)
 - readme.html
   sNewsCore
   - snews.php
   - snews.js
     lang
      - EN.php
   sNewsUser
     ADDONS
      - official_sNews_addons.php

     files
     template
         templateName
          - index.php
          - style.css
Title: Re: New version.. maybe?
Post by: Patric Ahlqvist on October 15, 2009, 04:33:33 pm
Am I reading you guy's clearly ? Leaner, meaner version ? BUT, wh'appens to all mods addons ? Are they supposed to go module ? Correct ?
Title: Re: New version.. maybe?
Post by: centered on October 15, 2009, 04:38:17 pm
That is what I have always leaned towards.. whether it comes to fruition, i don't know.  Again, it is just discussion and up for debate.
Title: Re: New version.. maybe?
Post by: Fred K on October 15, 2009, 04:58:19 pm
Yeah, I also think they would "go module". However, I'm not entirely happy with the Joost approach to func and include as I find those mighty useful (and I know that a few of my more balanced clients appreciate them as well), simply because it allows the site admin, which could well be a different person than the 'webmaster' in a single-user scenario, to do quick and "local" content additions, without having to drill down into the innards of snews.php or edit index.php (which could have adverse effects on the overall aesthetics) (of course, those "local", or isolated, additions could also have effects on the design but at least then it's quite easy to debug.) ("Did you just add something?" "Yeah?" "It broke the site." "oh.")

I can understand the argument that allowing in-Admin func and include could do lots of harm, especially if a cracker breaks in, but Files function would then be equally a potential hazard, wouldn't it? I'm just saying. I Iike in-admin func and include. They make my job easier.
Title: Re: New version.. maybe?
Post by: Joost on October 15, 2009, 05:05:44 pm
i never liked snews 1.7 from beginning.snews need one core file with better admin interface and comments need reply function also email form need stand alone.example i want to use email form in my front page or any page i wish.with this user have more freedom and is simple.archive need to be better organizing too.do we need 1.7b or new 2.0?

Sasha,

Could you explain more precise what's the problem, when you say "snews need one core file". Does it affect the way you work with sNews?
Better organizing of archive: You mean subpages for each year or archiving ordered by category? Explain.


do we need 1.7b or new 2.0?

Right now, we are looking towards 1.8. The general idea is not to make drastic changes, as done in 1.7.
One reason is, that I (and some of the dudes) believe that sNews 1.x is stretched to its limits already.
So a lot what is proposed, will not be implemented in 1.8. Some could be part of 1.9 or 2.0 though.

2.0 could be change to start form scratch. However, back in January, Luka decided he wanted to deliver a prototype (alpha version) himself. Therefore dudes, have put discussion (and development on ice). Due to circumstances, Luka haven't been able to deliver.
Title: Re: New version.. maybe?
Post by: Patric Ahlqvist on October 15, 2009, 05:14:34 pm
Quote from: Jase
That is what I have always leaned towards.. whether it comes to fruition, i don't know.  Again, it is just discussion and up for debate.

Mhm... I'n onboard. But I have to agree with Freddy Krüger though... some small things is really needed as he states.
Title: Re: New version.. maybe?
Post by: Joost on October 15, 2009, 05:15:24 pm
I can understand the argument that allowing in-Admin func and include could do lots of harm, especially if a cracker breaks in, but Files function would then be equally a potential hazard, wouldn't it? I'm just saying. I Iike in-admin func and include. They make my job easier.

It is not about the crackers, once there in, there in. They don't care about the system >:(
I sense the resistance. It seems that unless we built a substitute, this proposal won't make it. It probably won't.

Title: Re: New version.. maybe?
Post by: Fred K on October 15, 2009, 05:28:42 pm
Jason (short note) -- regarding the discussion in the "least liked feature" thread: sections are like super categories in a sense, yes. I have to think some more about it, because when Doug and you start talking about specific details, and Joost is standing on the sideline saying, "but, then, why?" (that's not an exact rendering of Joost's opinions, it's an approximation. Sorry if I've misinterpreted you, Joost. ;)), I sort of lose track of the overall idea. In my mind.

The reason I brought up "content hierarchy" in the least liked feature thread is because I don't see that kind of hierarchy in sNews, and it is a hierarchy, or structure if you will, that I wish existed.

Today's levels:
0 = Home [it's a category, but doesn't really work as other cats, so it's a special case]
1 =  Category [this is actually on the same level as Home, but since Home is a bit of a special case, we can see Cats as one level down from Home]
    1.1 = Subcats [entirely related to Cats, and nothing but Cats. Home doesn't have subcats in a strict sense.]
2 = Articles
3 = Pages [Pages are actually Articles, on the same level as Articles, but cannot belong to Cats, so they're something else]

Tomorrow's proposed hierarchy:

0 = Sections [Sections are basically super-categories, but more to be seen as content locators, shells if you will. Every content item, be it a Page, a Category/Subcategory or Article, belongs to a main Section. The original idea also included the ability to tag an Article with more than one Category/Subcategory but I don't know how doable that idea is, at least not for a dot-upgrade of the system. However, content can only be within one named Section. index.php then would be in the Home section. Contact could be in the Home section as well, or maybe you want to have an About section and put Contact in there. Sections are containers, and all Sections should be user-definable (you'd need one starter Section of course, like there's a default Category today).]

1= Section Content [Pages, Categories/Subcategories, Articles -- all these are on the second level (e,g the first level down from the top level).]

That is the hierarchy I see before me: Sections, and Content within Sections. I think that's where mine differ from yours or Keyrocks' visions, even though if you draw it up in detail, the schematics would look pretty much like the image you presented a year ago. (It was probably wrong of me to say earlier that my vision matches that image, but as I said above, when you and Key's get going I kind lose track of things, and, well... (and there's nothing wrong with your discussions by the way, that's  not it by far, they've certainly helped me to better formulate my original idea. Just so you know,)

0 = Sections
1= Section content.
That's all there's to it, really.
Question is if it can be done within the system.

Ok, that wasn't such a short note, but hey- I've been more long-winded before... :D
Title: Re: New version.. maybe?
Post by: Fred K on October 15, 2009, 05:31:50 pm
I can understand the argument that allowing in-Admin func and include could do lots of harm, especially if a cracker breaks in, but Files function would then be equally a potential hazard, wouldn't it? I'm just saying. I Iike in-admin func and include. They make my job easier.
It is not about the crackers, once there in, there in. They don't care about the system >:(
I sense the resistance. It seems that unless we built a substitute, this proposal won't make it. It probably won't.

Hey, if you can convince me it's a necessary thing to not have these bits available in Admin, I'm behind it. At this point I don't fully comprehend why it's necessary. Do you wish to try and convince me? :)
Title: Re: New version.. maybe?
Post by: centered on October 15, 2009, 05:46:47 pm
@ Pat, right I agree for small things.  But until Sash elaborates  I can only speculate and run with it.  Don't worry I am startign to write up a to do list that involves discussions on what has been going on (small things, nothing big, and not much of what i usually propose)

@ joost.  Yes the resistance is there. I noted it because for me to refactor more, i am sort of dependent on that function. If it is a issue to have ( and I noted for MU, I 100% agree, for SU, ) then if you could note an alternative to help, it would be good. if it is as bad as you say, then let's chuck it.

I think of it this way, if you really need it, then we implement plugins that can allow the file_includes back in.

execPlugin( 'content', $text);
Title: Re: New version.. maybe?
Post by: Joost on October 15, 2009, 05:51:44 pm
I can understand the argument that allowing in-Admin func and include could do lots of harm, especially if a cracker breaks in, but Files function would then be equally a potential hazard, wouldn't it? I'm just saying. I Iike in-admin func and include. They make my job easier.
It is not about the crackers, once there in, there in. They don't care about the system >:(
I sense the resistance. It seems that unless we built a substitute, this proposal won't make it. It probably won't.

Hey, if you can convince me it's a necessary thing to not have these bits available in Admin, I'm behind it. At this point I don't fully comprehend why it's necessary. Do you wish to try and convince me? :)

No I won't try. :) As Phil already noted, in most cases, the admin is the same person as the webmaster. So he won't sabotage his webspace.
But let's assume that we would appoint an editor to maintain http://snewscms.com/extend/, but we would not trust him that much to have full access to the webspace ( ftp account and cpanel access). That person can use php to get full control.
Now, as long as we're fully aware of the fact, it is not a big deal. We may chose not appointing that person.
Title: Re: New version.. maybe?
Post by: centered on October 15, 2009, 06:06:07 pm
@Fred:
I know where you are coming from.  Change the wording "section" to "category" and still see if you can't apply the pages in categories idea.

Home
About
Contact
Section 1
 - Page
   Category
   - Article
Section 2
 - Page
   Category
   - Article
Section 3
 - Page
   Category
   - Article
Title: Re: New version.. maybe?
Post by: Keyrocks on October 15, 2009, 07:29:59 pm
Jason (short note) -- regarding the discussion in the "least liked feature" thread: sections are like super categories in a sense, yes. I have to think some more about it, because when Doug and you start talking about specific details, and Joost is standing on the sideline saying, "but, then, why?" (that's not an exact rendering of Joost's opinions, it's an approximation. Sorry if I've misinterpreted you, Joost. ;)), I sort of lose track of the overall idea. In my mind.

The reason I brought up "content hierarchy" in the least liked feature thread is because I don't see that kind of hierarchy in sNews, and it is a hierarchy, or structure if you will, that I wish existed.

My approach in 1.6... to get pages showing in cats & sub-cats... was to work with pages using its existing content type = "3"... it was simpler than coming up with a whole new way of assigning content types.

Obviously we each have a different 'vision' of how one thing or another might work or be applied; that's normal when we're all over the world and can't meet together and discuss our ideas together in person.

I am thinking that... rather than try to have general discussions on several topics in this one "New version... maybe?" thread, we should start a new Board titled "Considerations for sNews 2.0" or something to that effect. My reason for suggesting this is that it's much easier to keep topics organized in separate threads in one location and, right now, some of our current discussions are happening in several threads. Some topics will attract a lot of discussion while others might attract very little... and the latter can easily get lost when mixed in one mulit-topic thread.

Title: Re: New version.. maybe?
Post by: Fred K on October 16, 2009, 07:05:03 pm
@Fred:
I know where you are coming from.  Change the wording "section" to "category" and still see if you can't apply the pages in categories idea.

Home
About
Contact
Section 1
 - Page
   Category
   - Article
Section 2
 - Page
   Category
   - Article
Section 3
 - Page
   Category
   - Article

It *seems* to me like this is more or less the same structure as we have now, except that Pages can go in the Section supercat.
What I'm trying to get at is a *different* structure, because to me it feels like the current one isn't adequate (or versatile enough) if you try and go beyond the scope of the standard blog/daily news-like site. Not sure if I'm successful in getting that across...

Quote from: Keyrocks
... rather than try to have general discussions on several topics in this one "New version... maybe?" thread, we should start a new Board titled "Considerations for sNews 2.0" or something to that effect.
Certainly, although --if we're talking about this Sections development for example-- discussions on this topic is already in several places, since it's been brought up on a number of occasions spread out over versions. I can't give other examples off the top of my head but I have a feeling there are other features/improvements/suggestions that also appear in many different places. Opening yet another board for that sole purpose will probably not help for already published ideas (published in many places that is). That said, a "Considerations for future versions" board is obviously a good idea, to keep such suggestions centralised.
Title: Re: New version.. maybe?
Post by: Keyrocks on October 16, 2009, 10:40:42 pm
Quote from: Fred K
It *seems* to me like this is more or less the same structure as we have now, except that Pages can go in the Section supercat.
What I'm trying to get at is a *different* structure, because to me it feels like the current one isn't adequate (or versatile enough) if you try and go beyond the scope of the standard blog/daily news-like site. Not sure if I'm successful in getting that across...

It does look like what we already have.
@ Fred... why not mock up a static menu on a static page... to show us what you are trying to convey.

Quote from: Fred K
Quote from: Keyrocks
... rather than try to have general discussions on several topics in this one "New version... maybe?" thread, we should start a new Board titled "Considerations for sNews 2.0" or something to that effect.
Certainly, although --if we're talking about this Sections development for example-- discussions on this topic is already in several places, since it's been brought up on a number of occasions spread out over versions. I can't give other examples off the top of my head but I have a feeling there are other features/improvements/suggestions that also appear in many different places. Opening yet another board for that sole purpose will probably not help for already published ideas (published in many places that is). That said, a "Considerations for future versions" board is obviously a good idea, to keep such suggestions centralised.

"Considerations for future versions" is more generic... that's better actually... since it doesn't 'commit' to any particular version.

You are quite right Fred... discussions on similar/same topics are all over the place; poor organization has led this website to become more difficult to find stuff in. This happens to a lot of boards. Getting stuff better organized would create a full-time job for at least a month or two. It really doesn't matter anyhow... there are very few active users on the site nowadays.  ;)
Title: Re: New version.. maybe?
Post by: centered on October 17, 2009, 05:00:56 am
Quote
I am thinking that... rather than try to have general discussions on several topics in this one "New version... maybe?" thread, we should start a new Board titled "Considerations for sNews 2.0" or something to that effect. My reason for suggesting this is that it's much easier to keep topics organized in separate threads in one location and, right now, some of our current discussions are happening in several threads. Some topics will attract a lot of discussion while others might attract very little... and the latter can easily get lost when mixed in one mulit-topic thread.

@ Doug, Good idea. Can you start a new thread/board and copy these posts there

@ Fred,  unelss you draw it up I can't help.  The other idea you showed has categories and articles hooked to the page which hooked to the section.  Now I don't know if current 1/x sNews can do sort a thing.  I proposed for 2.0 a database structure that doesn't care what the content type is - some content will be subcontent to something - end of story.  The other thing too, is sNews also supports a 2 level hierarchy, what you proposed is more:

Curr: domain.com/category/subcategory/article
Prop: domain.com/section/page/category/subcategory/article

Again, not a problem, but not for current sNews
Title: Re: New version.. maybe?
Post by: Sasha on October 17, 2009, 10:57:19 am
i m for start of new snews 2.0 from scratch.What we need first is to open new thret for discussion what we want to see in new version.Also for new version we not need time rush.This my take hole year or more.I think reverting some code in 1.7  to make 1.8 is not solution.I also know many of us dont have much free time to devlop snews in 3-4 months.We can have one thret (delit all previus about new version in this forum to clean forum from same) about this and start make some code.Also Code can be posted public not need to be work behind closed doors so some of our visitor may participate or give us some fresh ideas about snews new version.This is my idea to build snews 2.0 publicly.
Title: Re: New version.. maybe?
Post by: Fred K on October 17, 2009, 03:06:51 pm
@ Fred... The other idea you showed has categories and articles hooked to the page which hooked to the section.
...sNews also supports a 2 level hierarchy, what you proposed is more:
Quote
Curr: domain.com/category/subcategory/article
Prop: domain.com/section/page/category/subcategory/article
Again, not a problem, but not for current sNews

My ideas are often driven by need, and when the need changes - so does the idea. However, I'll try and draw a schematic for the idea of level 1=Section + level 2=Content, which is the fundamental structure I'm looking for. However, the prop is not site/section/page/cat/subcat/article, but it is:

Quote

1. site/section/page <!-- Ends there.
2. site/section/category/subcategory/article <!-- Ends there
3. (possibly) site/section/category/page <!-- Ends there (this seems less useful though but is an alternative) nah, a page in a cat = an article!

Now where have I put my crayons...
Title: Re: New version.. maybe?
Post by: centered on October 17, 2009, 03:59:02 pm
i m for start of new snews 2.0 from scratch.What we need first is to open new thret for discussion what we want to see in new version.Also for new version we not need time rush.This my take hole year or more.I think reverting some code in 1.7  to make 1.8 is not solution.I also know many of us dont have much free time to devlop snews in 3-4 months.We can have one thret (delit all previus about new version in this forum to clean forum from same) about this and start make some code.Also Code can be posted public not need to be work behind closed doors so some of our visitor may participate or give us some fresh ideas about snews new version.This is my idea to build snews 2.0 publicly.

Start the thread sasha.  And as for code being public, I think you can see that I am keeping code public and dicussion public, encouraging the non-dudes for full participation, including yourself..  For 2.0 I would like the same thing when a base becomes built.
Title: Re: New version.. maybe?
Post by: Fred K on October 17, 2009, 05:51:02 pm
Yeah, more "non-dudes" need to speak up about what features we can/should remove (and also, in a longer perspective perhaps, how they want sNews to behave). sNews is for all, not just a select few. Man up (or as the case may be, woman up): speak your piece. 8)

I found my crayon box, btw. Not sure how clear the pictures are, but here are two pix that try and describe how I see Sections:

1)
(http://www.ball-ball.net/images/sections-wire1.jpg)
This panel shows the intended behavior of Sections. Basically a section is the root for the content, which can be anything - Pages, Categories/Subcat's with articles, whatever. (Pages don't belong in Categories btw, since a Page essentially is an Article meaning if Pages go in Categories, they become Articles...)

2)
(http://www.ball-ball.net/images/sections-wire2.jpg)
This shows the imagined overall site structure. Home is a special case, as seen by wire1 above - at least as I envision it. If anything it's a Section, though as I think most people use Home these days, it's a Page. Go figure.

Sorry about the image size. Hope they're clear enough. Basically, you start with a Home section, and I guess some static Pages like Archive, Sitemap and Contact (you should be able to reassign those to other sections though). Then add Sections, and content, as you like.

I'm thinking of doing an HTML mockup site as well, just to demonstrate functionality, if I can find the time...
Title: Re: New version.. maybe?
Post by: Keyrocks on October 17, 2009, 07:33:59 pm
Quote
I am thinking that... rather than try to have general discussions on several topics in this one "New version... maybe?" thread, we should start a new Board titled "Considerations for sNews 2.0" or something to that effect. My reason for suggesting this is that it's much easier to keep topics organized in separate threads in one location and, right now, some of our current discussions are happening in several threads. Some topics will attract a lot of discussion while others might attract very little... and the latter can easily get lost when mixed in one mulit-topic thread.

@ Doug, Good idea. Can you start a new thread/board and copy these posts there.

Actually... we already have the Board - Looking towards 2.0 (http://snewscms.com/forum/index.php?board=104.0) so if we put everything related to 2.0 and/or 'future versions' in that Board at least it will be in one location.  :)
Title: Re: New version.. maybe?
Post by: Fred K on October 19, 2009, 01:25:23 am
Started a discussion for future features (http://snewscms.com/forum/index.php?topic=8722.0), there. I thought Sasha would, but... oh well, I jumped the gun. ;)
Add yours, please.
Title: Re: New version.. maybe?
Post by: Sasha on October 20, 2009, 02:48:11 am
Good :) i m too busy at this moment working 150 hours in two weeks and i not have day of more then month.In january i m going to be more active in this forum but until that i have to stick with periodic visit...
Title: Re: New version.. maybe?
Post by: Keyrocks on October 20, 2009, 02:21:14 pm
Good :) i m too busy at this moment working 150 hours in two weeks and i not have day of more then month.In january i m going to be more active in this forum but until that i have to stick with periodic visit...

You will get ahead by keeping your 'nose to the grindstone'.  :)