Re: [Phpslash-devel] embracing the future

[Peter C. <li...@cr...>]

On Monday 27 Oct 2003 7:09 pm, Joe Stewart wrote:
...

Thanks for your feedback Joe and Luis - seems that a lot of my points are 
because I was using the CVS rather than a distro, and that's it's been a 
while since I was involved here.

> > First impressions on doing a simple default install:
> >
> > - I really like the modularisation. The structure is so different tho
> > that  I think it's worth considering calling it 0.8 when it is released
> > (will make it easier to keep Back-End in step with PSL, apart from
> > anything else). Of course, that brings it all scarily close of 1.x...
> > which will be hit by the end of this decade at the current rate :-)

A move to 0.8 might be the chance to change config.ini.php to consistently use 
the dot notation for naming settings (db.host, skin.default, 
search.maxresults etc). Just a thought.

> > think it would make it easier to customise skins by making it obvious
> > where the content comes from. (I think Joe mentioned this in the context
> > of using the PEAR template class)
>
> If this isn't working, file a bug report.  The existing templates have not
> been moved in the cvs, but it's been tested.

What convention have you used for paths? I'm going to develop a couple of 
modules for a client, and would like to stick with the standard. 

I'd guess something like:
{rootdir}/include/modules/{modulename}/templates/en/{skinname}/
with a skin.ini that points to:
{rootdir}/include/templates/en/{skinname}/

> One thing I don't like.  If your new whiz bang module adds a block type,
> The _render.class file has to go in modules/block/blocktypes.

Perhaps if psl_block_type had an extra field to record the block's module? The 
page building code would then know where to look.
- the existing block adding/removing code would have to be changed tho. (Is it 
used much?)

[Other points are specific to the CVS]

> > - Not sure what the point of the show_admin_on_navbar option is. The
> > current note got me confused...
>
> May be time for it to go away.  It's whether you want the login/logout in
> the navbar.

If I enable show_admin_on_navbar, the navbar has:
[Logout nobody] [Login] ...
and once I'm logged in:
[Logout god] [Logout] ...
Which just don't seem right ;-)

New query:
Not sure if it's just my setup, but I checked the Remember Me box, and I've 
not been able to properly logout - when I click logout, I get the login form 
(as you'd expect), but when I go to other pages, I'm still logged in as god.

...


> > Comments on the example data:
> >
> > - it would be great if Home was section 1. Put that down to me being
> > neurotic...
>
> hmm... Sounds good to me.  Should be able to work around with upgrade
> scripts.

No need to change existing data I think (unless data structure has changed) - 
so long as the Home->3 relationship is left in config.ini.php for existing 
installs?

> > - INSTALL should make it clear that the example data assumes that the
> > public_html directory is visible to the web client (I think it would be
> > better if installers were encouraged to install phpslash away from the
> > webroot and then link public_html to the webroot. Not sure whether that
> > would solve problems with the example data tho).
>
> ??  Can you go into more detail?

Using Mandrake, I downloaded to CVS to /var/www/phpslash-dev/, and then from 
/var/www/html did an 
ln -s ../phpslash-dev/public_html phpslash
so that phpSlash runs from http://localhost/phpslash/ 

(OK I know I could use Apache commands to achieve the same effect) 

Anyway, all I was saying is that the links in the demo data were to 
http://localhost/phpslash/public_html/ . . . not a big deal, and since the 
instal is aimed at people unfamiliar with PSL the data is probably right .

> This is how I've been installing it -
>
> The files in public_html get installed in the webroot.
> Then create a structure like this:
> home-phpslash-etc-config.ini.php - config.php has the full path to it.
>              -include/
That's got me confused now!

> > - Perhaps the date on the 'Congratulations' article should be updated (it
> > says 4-Dec-2000 right now...)
...

> thanks for the impression and suggestions.

No problems

Peter
-- 
Computers are not intelligent.  They only think they are.