Menu
▾
▴
phpwebsite-developers
|
From: Matthew M. <ma...@tu...> - 2005-05-02 18:20:41
|
Greetings, A few weeks ago I started writing the Comments module. After talking with He-Who-Cannot-Be-Named (ok fine - Steven) we outlined the Threaded - Nested - Flat views for comments. Since flat view was the easiest, I started with it. It was actually pretty easy using the DBPager class. I can paginate and it only pulls the rows that are needed (read: speed / low overhead). After getting it working pretty well, I started looking at threaded and nested. The short of it is, I don't like them for a few reasons: 1) Unlike flat view, you have to load ALL the comments in a thread at once. Even if you don't process them all, you have to load them. 2) "Ah", you say, "but you can limit them by where or count!" Not really. If I limit via the db by time, I only get the children comments not the parents. If I limit by count, then there are gaps between pages and most likely one thread with several children would dominate. 3) As Mike Noyes suggested (and Steven and I debated), those views are harder to template. 4) I hate nested/threaded with its smaller and smaller widths. Looks awful to me. I know Slashdot has the moderator points, but how many people really want to use that? It seems more of a bandaid for the problems that threaded/nested create. phpBB uses flat and it's kinda popular ;-) Am I thinking of just sticking with flat and offering filtering on time frame, user, and other stuff you guys can think of. Anyway, I wanted to check with the devs before taking this mindset 100% (I'm at 98% so far). Matt -- Matthew McNaney Electronic Student Services Appalachian State University http://phpwebsite.appstate.edu |
|
From: Don S. <do...@se...> - 2005-05-02 18:29:39
|
On 14:14 Mon 02 May , Matthew McNaney wrote: > phpBB uses flat and it's kinda popular ;-) Am I thinking of just > sticking with flat and offering filtering on time frame, user, and other > stuff you guys can think of. >=20 > Anyway, I wanted to check with the devs before taking this mindset 100% > (I'm at 98% so far). Flat is fine with me, and that is all that really matters. --=20 Don Seiler do...@se... Public Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=3Dget&search=3D0xFC87F041 Fingerprint: 0B56 50D5 E91E 4D4C 83B7 207C 76AC 5DA2 FC87 F041 |
|
From: Shaun M. <sh...@ae...> - 2005-05-03 03:22:21
|
On 2 May 2005, at 19:29, Don Seiler wrote: > On 14:14 Mon 02 May , Matthew McNaney wrote: > >> phpBB uses flat and it's kinda popular ;-) Am I thinking of just >> sticking with flat and offering filtering on time frame, user, and >> other >> stuff you guys can think of. >> >> Anyway, I wanted to check with the devs before taking this mindset >> 100% >> (I'm at 98% so far). >> > > Flat is fine with me, and that is all that really matters. I'd agree. I've ran forums with flat and threaded views before and almost everyone switches to flat when they get busy. Threaded falls apart after more than a dozen posts IME. And no-one other than SlashDot geeks or Kuro5hin regulars understand mod points or karma modifiers. I'd leave them out for now also. Since Don commented, I'm reminded that I think we should really merge in both the comments and the forum system or be able to use the comments module as the basis of a forum. It's always struck me as a bit odd that there's a division between them. The only problem there might be that some people like the phpBB style flat view of a forum with all the extra bells and whistles. Can we allow different templates for comments depending on which parent module is using it? Shaun aegis design - http://www.aegisdesign.co.uk |
|
From: Matthew M. <ma...@tu...> - 2005-05-03 11:44:21
|
> Since Don commented, I'm reminded that I think we should really merge > in both the comments and the forum system or be able to use the > comments module as the basis of a forum. I agree. If Don and Wendall can give me feedback to make comments easier to merge, it would be appreciated. > Can > we allow different templates for comments depending on which parent > module is using it? Good point. Yes that can be done. -- Matthew McNaney Electronic Student Services Appalachian State University http://phpwebsite.appstate.edu |
|
From: Eloi G. <el...@re...> - 2005-05-03 18:46:54
|
I agree with those that think that "Flat View" is the best, but "Nested" and "Threaded" should be included if just to save us from the constant barrage of requests for those types of views. One of the reasons I chose phpWS was because I had that option -- even though I never wanted to use it. Make Flat View the default, and we won't have to worry so much about the performance hits the other methods will generate. I also support Shaun's suggestion of merging the Comments and forum modules. I'd started doing such a thing early last year before I got sidetracked with making the other changes to phpwsbb. I might still have the forked code around somewhere. If you like, I can look for it tonight. I'll summarize what it did so you can decide if that's the direction you wanted to go. phpwsbb would have an extra function like Comment's listCurrentComments(). Depending on the state of a config switch, the output shown would be either a summary box or a full thread display. If no topic has been created yet for this module item, the summary box would display. When you click the "leave a post" link, phpwsbb will create the topic using the module name, item id, and title as parameters which are also stored in mod_phpwsbb_threads. The reason for this is that when you view the topic through the forum, a link to the parent page can be presented to the user. I think that I never finished it because there was a question of how to decide which forum to create the topic in. The options were to either have all topics land in a default "Comments" forum, or to have the author pick a forum while editing the article. -Eloi- |
|
From: Wendall C. <wen...@83...> - 2005-05-03 00:18:23
|
Matthew McNaney wrote: >Greetings, > >A few weeks ago I started writing the Comments module. After talking >with He-Who-Cannot-Be-Named (ok fine - Steven) we outlined the Threaded >- Nested - Flat views for comments. > >Since flat view was the easiest, I started with it. It was actually >pretty easy using the DBPager class. I can paginate and it only pulls >the rows that are needed (read: speed / low overhead). After getting it >working pretty well, I started looking at threaded and nested. > >The short of it is, I don't like them for a few reasons: > >1) Unlike flat view, you have to load ALL the comments in a thread at >once. Even if you don't process them all, you have to load them. > >2) "Ah", you say, "but you can limit them by where or count!" Not >really. If I limit via the db by time, I only get the children comments >not the parents. If I limit by count, then there are gaps between pages >and most likely one thread with several children would dominate. > >3) As Mike Noyes suggested (and Steven and I debated), those views are >harder to template. > >4) I hate nested/threaded with its smaller and smaller widths. Looks >awful to me. > >I know Slashdot has the moderator points, but how many people really >want to use that? It seems more of a bandaid for the problems that >threaded/nested create. > >phpBB uses flat and it's kinda popular ;-) Am I thinking of just >sticking with flat and offering filtering on time frame, user, and other >stuff you guys can think of. > >Anyway, I wanted to check with the devs before taking this mindset 100% >(I'm at 98% so far). > >Matt > > > > Flat is good. I also dislike nested in small spaces like the body area. It would be fine if the interface was designed for nested. Wendall |
|
From: Shaun M. <sh...@ae...> - 2005-05-04 13:54:18
|
On 3 May 2005, at 01:17, Wendall Cada wrote: > > Flat is good. I also dislike nested in small spaces like the body > area. It would be fine if the interface was designed for nested. > Yeah, the way it's done currently with block quoting and indenting about an inch doesn't work well, particularly if you're running a fixed size design or needing to run in 800px wide. Once you've got a couple of columns you're only left with 400-500px to play in. If we do keep nested, it'd be better if it only indented say 1 or 2em per level so that it doesn't start sprawling across the body area. Shaun aegis design - http://www.aegisdesign.co.uk |
×
Want the latest updates on software, tech news, and AI?
Get latest updates about software, tech news, and AI from SourceForge directly in your inbox once a month.
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X