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

Author Topic: New version.. maybe?  (Read 5802 times)

centered

  • Guest
New version.. maybe?
« 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" 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" 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. 
« Last Edit: October 14, 2009, 07:39:22 pm by equilni »
Logged

Sasha

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Karma: 28
  • Posts: 938
    • cssanarchy.com
Re: New version.. maybe?
« Reply #1 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?
« Last Edit: October 15, 2009, 05:43:22 am by Sasha »
Logged
Every morning, I get up and look through the 'Forbes' list of the richest people in America. If I'm not there, I go to work. | If you love your job, you haven't worked a day in your life. snews with ♥

centered

  • Guest
Re: New version.. maybe?
« Reply #2 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
« Last Edit: October 15, 2009, 10:09:58 am by equilni »
Logged

Fred K

  • Still trying to learn stuff
  • ULTIMATE member
  • ******
  • Karma: 130
  • Posts: 2728
    • Personal
Re: New version.. maybe?
« Reply #3 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.)
Logged

centered

  • Guest
Re: New version.. maybe?
« Reply #4 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:
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
« Last Edit: October 15, 2009, 01:49:00 pm by equilni »
Logged

Patric Ahlqvist

  • Nobodys perfect, but Im pretty effing close
  • ULTIMATE member
  • ******
  • Karma: 65
  • Posts: 4867
  • “I'm a self-made man and worships my creator.”
    • p-ahlqvist.com
Re: New version.. maybe?
« Reply #5 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 ?
Logged
"It's only dead fish that goes with the flow... "
Updated

centered

  • Guest
Re: New version.. maybe?
« Reply #6 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.
Logged

Fred K

  • Still trying to learn stuff
  • ULTIMATE member
  • ******
  • Karma: 130
  • Posts: 2728
    • Personal
Re: New version.. maybe?
« Reply #7 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.
Logged

Joost

  • Guest
Re: New version.. maybe?
« Reply #8 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.
« Last Edit: October 15, 2009, 05:07:55 pm by Joost »
Logged

Patric Ahlqvist

  • Nobodys perfect, but Im pretty effing close
  • ULTIMATE member
  • ******
  • Karma: 65
  • Posts: 4867
  • “I'm a self-made man and worships my creator.”
    • p-ahlqvist.com
Re: New version.. maybe?
« Reply #9 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.
Logged
"It's only dead fish that goes with the flow... "
Updated

Joost

  • Guest
Re: New version.. maybe?
« Reply #10 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.

Logged

Fred K

  • Still trying to learn stuff
  • ULTIMATE member
  • ******
  • Karma: 130
  • Posts: 2728
    • Personal
Re: New version.. maybe?
« Reply #11 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
Logged

Fred K

  • Still trying to learn stuff
  • ULTIMATE member
  • ******
  • Karma: 130
  • Posts: 2728
    • Personal
Re: New version.. maybe?
« Reply #12 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? :)
Logged

centered

  • Guest
Re: New version.. maybe?
« Reply #13 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);
Logged

Joost

  • Guest
Re: New version.. maybe?
« Reply #14 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.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2