slashcode-general — This is the general discussion list. Install questions welcome.

[Slashcode-general] From plugin -- allowing admin to select a system user

[Micah Y. <yo...@ho...>]

Hi,

Am writing a plugin and making good progress.

I just need to allow an administrator to select a user on the system.  Any 
good way to do that, reinventing little if any code and templates?

I was thinking of maybe writing another plugin that would allow 
browsing/searching users from a popup window and when one is selected it 
would copy the username into a form field.  Then other plugins could use that 
mechanism.  I think something like that is needed if Slash is going to become 
an application development platform (and I really see it heading that way).  
Perhaps I'll get to coding it unless someone has a better idea. :-)

-- 
Like to travel?                        http://TravTalk.org
Micah Yoder Internet Development       http://yoderdev.com

Re: [Slashcode-general] Calling "Blocks" from a Template?

[Chris N. <pu...@po...>]

At 19:45 -0400 2001.08.26, Jason Huckaby wrote:
>OK.. two hours later :)
>
>Need quotes on bid, use this:
>
>[% USE Slash %]
>[% Slash.db.getBlock("bid", "block") %]
>
>Just replace bid with block name.

I was using 'bid' as a variable name.  :Example:

	slashDisplay($template, { bid => $bid });

Sorry for the confusion.  This is why we like Perl, we know what is a
variable.  :)

-- 
Chris Nandor                      pu...@po...    http://pudge.net/
Open Source Development Network    pu...@os...     http://osdn.com/

Re: [Slashcode-general] Calling "Blocks" from a Template?

[Jason H. <ja...@ne...>]

OK.. two hours later :)

Need quotes on bid, use this:

[% USE Slash %]
[% Slash.db.getBlock("bid", "block") %]

Just replace bid with block name.

-jh

--
Jason Huckaby

NErock.com Webmaster
Portland, ME
(207) 415-3142

Re: [Slashcode-general] Calling "Blocks" from a Template?

[Chris N. <pu...@po...>]

At 17:59 -0400 2001.08.26, Jason Huckaby wrote:
>Templates are easy to call from another template, but how do you
>call specific blocks (like sectionindex) from a template (or any
>template)?

	[% USE Slash %]
	[% Slash.db.getBlock(bid, "block") %]

sectionindex is a template in Slash 2.2.  So is topics.

-- 
Chris Nandor                      pu...@po...    http://pudge.net/
Open Source Development Network    pu...@os...     http://osdn.com/

[Slashcode-general] Calling "Blocks" from a Template?

[Jason H. <ja...@ne...>]

Templates are easy to call from another template, but how do you 
call specific blocks (like sectionindex) from a template (or any 
template)?

-jh

--
Jason Huckaby
Portland, ME

[Slashcode-general] slashd won't start under FreeBSD

[Dave K. <dav...@po...>]

I recently migrated Nanodot (http://nanodot.org) from RedHat and Slash 1.x to FreeBSD and Bender.  However, slashd won't start.

If my slash.sites file reads "slash:nobody:nanodot.org", I get the "This account is currently not available." error (as described at http://slashcode.com/article.pl?sid=01/08/14/074257).

If I change it to "slash:slash:nanodot.org", slashd simply exists with no error and "PID = (blank)".

I have modified the FreeBSD line in utils/slash as described at http://slashcode.com/article.pl?sid=01/06/14/0454227

Sorry to bug the list, but I couldn't find any resolution of this issue on either Slashcode or the list archives.

What's left to do that I haven't done?

Thanks,

Dave


    Dave Krieger | dav...@po... | http://www.davekrieger.net

    da...@fq... is going away!
    Update all your address books and aliases to dav...@po...

PGP Key Hashes: RSA: 86B2 B14F 18D2 63B4  2A48 6B66 B2F7 B6F9
                DSS: DE8C 9199 2733 AE2B B6CE  04FB A788 735D B6A8 59F7
                            
            
                

[Slashcode-general] slashd won't start under FreeBSD

[Dave K. <da...@fq...>]

I recently migrated Nanodot (http://nanodot.org) from RedHat and Slash 1.x to FreeBSD and Bender.  However, slashd won't start.

If my slash.sites file reads "slash:nobody:nanodot.org", I get the "This account is currently not available." error (as described at http://slashcode.com/article.pl?sid=01/08/14/074257).

If I change it to "slash:slash:nanodot.org", slashd simply exists with no error and "PID = (blank)".

I have modified the FreeBSD line in utils/slash as described at http://slashcode.com/article.pl?sid=01/06/14/0454227

Sorry to bug the list, but I couldn't find any resolution of this issue on either Slashcode or the list archives.

What's left to do that I haven't done?

Thanks,

Dave


    Dave Krieger | dav...@po... | http://www.davekrieger.net

    da...@fq... is going away!
    Update all your address books and aliases to dav...@po...

PGP Key Hashes: RSA: 86B2 B14F 18D2 63B4  2A48 6B66 B2F7 B6F9
                DSS: DE8C 9199 2733 AE2B B6CE  04FB A788 735D B6A8 59F7
                            
            
                

Re: [Slashcode-general] licensing issues information?

[Micah Y. <yo...@ho...>]

> I've got a number of plugins written, or atleast
> being written. I plan to put them all out at no cost
> because slash itself is free (atleast the calendar
> and photo gallery plugins).

Definitely nice.  I could use at least the calendar if not the photo gallery.

> And I honestly don't know what license I would do
> best by going with.

I'd honestly suggest the GPL.  It comes with the disclaimer you need.  It's 
the same license as Slashcode.  And it will protect you against someone else 
modifying your plugin and re-selling the modified version as closed source 
software.

It still seems to me like anything that uses GPL code (ala Slash) needs to be 
GPL also.  But since it's not linked into the same executable I guess it is 
debatable.

-- 
Like to travel?                        http://TravTalk.org
Micah Yoder Internet Development       http://yoderdev.com

Re: [Slashcode-general] licensing issues information?

[Michael V. B. <mlv...@th...>]

On Fri, Aug 24, 2001 at 08:49:31AM -0400, shane wrote:
> Is there a website or other online resource that
> explains all the different licenses available, and the
> issues that come with each?

Links to several such pages (allow for bias in each case):

http://sourceforge.net/docman/display_doc.php?docid=778&group_id=1

> I've got a number of plugins written, or atleast
> being written. I plan to put them all out at no cost
> because slash itself is free (atleast the calendar
> and photo gallery plugins).

That would be great -- I too need a calendar plugin.  I hope that my
employer will allow me to release a plugin that I created for work.

> But, I've got a wife, home, kids, and a small
> side business. I don't want to endanger any of them
> by using the "wrong" licensing to put some of these
> out for use and have some idiot come after me
> because he accidentally rm -f'd his drive while installing one
> of my plugins.

Any license that you find will have a disclaimer clause.  If you release
something into the public domain, however, there is no disclaimer.

> And I honestly don't know what license I would do
> best by going with.

I suggest using a simple license so that you know what you've done.
Whatever you do might accidentally default to the GPL if it used with
Slash, but you might consider the value of your code outside of Slash.
Some licenses such as the MIT one will allow other people to relicense
your code (possibly under the GPL), but still protect against lawsuits.

-- 
# -- Michael Van Biesbrouck,      mlv...@th...
:b^Js/\(.*\)\(,.*\):\1\(.\)\([a-z]*\)\(.\)r\(:.*\)>\3/\4\2:\1\3\4\5r\6\5>/
s/\(.*\)\(,.*\):\1\(.\)\([a-z]*\)\(.\)l\(:.*\)\(.\)>\3/\4\2:\1\3\4\5l\6>\7\5/
s/>$/>0/^J/^halt/!bb

[Slashcode-general] Re: Plugin architecture and the GPL {was Re: [Slashcode-general] licensing issues information?}

[Chris N. <pu...@po...>]

At 14:38 +0000 2001.08.24, Dave Aiello wrote:
>If it turns out that Slashcode plugins cannot be written without subjecting
>them to the GPL, I suggest that would have the effect of limiting the range of
>value-added plugins that would be produced by developers.

I agree.  As previously noted, we are soliciting the official opinion of
OSDN, since it owns the code.

-- 
Chris Nandor                      pu...@po...    http://pudge.net/
Open Source Development Network    pu...@os...     http://osdn.com/

Plugin architecture and the GPL {was Re: [Slashcode-general] licensing issues information?}

[Dave A. <dav...@ct...>]

Chris Nandor wrote:
> 
> Some would argue that you are required to put your publically available
> Slash plugin under the GPL.  I am not convinced this is true, but some
> would say that.  I think that it might be worthwhile to get the legal
> position of OSDN on that.  I'll try to find out.
> 

If it turns out that Slashcode plugins cannot be written without subjecting 
them to the GPL, I suggest that would have the effect of limiting the range of 
value-added plugins that would be produced by developers.

A plugin architecture ought to be a means to interface other products to 
Slashcode sites and should not dictate the terms underwhich those programs are 
distributed.  It is widely believed that incorporating any GPLed code 
directly into another product forces a developer to GPL that product (see 
<http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLInProprietarySystem>). If plugins 
cannot be written without incorporating GPLed code, then we should be looking 
for a way to alleviate that.

I found the Plugin HOWTO that was posted to Slashcode.com in February, 
<http://slashcode.com/article.pl?sid=01/02/22/1929235&mode=thread>.  Has this 
document been updated in subsequent distributions?  Can anyone say, 
definitively, if the plugin architecture requires use of GPLed code?

For the record, I am not against the Slashcode being licensed under the GPL.  I 
just think that the plugin architecture should be as open and legally 
unencumbered as we can possibly make it.

Let me know if you have any comments on what I've said,

Dave Aiello
CTDATA

Re: [Slashcode-general] licensing issues information?

[Wakko <una...@ho...>]

Actually... My understanding of the GPL is that you must release any bits of
code that incorporate GPL'ed bits of code.

So... if you write an app that only uses GPL'ed code for one module, you'd
only have to GPL the one module. Not the whole app.

The GPL only covers direct extensions/modifications/derivitives of GPL'ed
code.

But that's just my interpretation...  and I'm definitely not a lawyer.

---Wakko.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Nandor" <pu...@po...>
To: <sla...@li...>
Cc: <sla...@li...>
Sent: Friday, August 24, 2001 5:50 AM
Subject: Re: [Slashcode-general] licensing issues information?


> At 08:49 -0400 2001.08.24, shane wrote:
> >Is there a website or other online resource that
> >explains all the different licenses available, and the
> >issues that come with each?
> >
> >I've got a number of plugins written, or atleast
> >being written. I plan to put them all out at no cost
> >because slash itself is free (atleast the calendar
> >and photo gallery plugins).
> >
> >But, I've got a wife, home, kids, and a small
> >side business. I don't want to endanger any of them
> >by using the "wrong" licensing to put some of these
> >out for use and have some idiot come after me
> >because he accidentally rm -f'd his drive while installing one
> >of my plugins.
> >
> >And I honestly don't know what license I would do
> >best by going with.
>
> Some would argue that you are required to put your publically available
> Slash plugin under the GPL.  I am not convinced this is true, but some
> would say that.  I think that it might be worthwhile to get the legal
> position of OSDN on that.  I'll try to find out.
>
> --
> Chris Nandor                      pu...@po...    http://pudge.net/
> Open Source Development Network    pu...@os...     http://osdn.com/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Slashcode-general mailing list
> Sla...@li...
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/slashcode-general

Re: [Slashcode-general] licensing issues information?

[<al...@ya...>]

 --- shane <sh...@lo...> wrote: > 
> Is there a website or other online resource that
> explains all the different licenses available, and the
> issues that come with each?

I've seen a few explanations but these are usually written by someone with an axe to grind.

I'm a big fan of the perl license and the apache software licenses.

I can explain why I prefer them over GPL but that wont prove they are better - 
merely more appropriate to what I need.
 
> I've got a number of plugins written, or atleast
> being written. I plan to put them all out at no cost
> because slash itself is free (atleast the calendar
> and photo gallery plugins).

Good for you. Can I have a copy please? I'll help beta test them :-)
I want to do a photo album of science fiction authors. A friend has around 
300 photos he wants to put on an academic website...

Likewise my slash site does mention quite a lot of events - it would be nice
to have a calendar of these.
 
> But, I've got a wife, home, kids, and a small
> side business. I don't want to endanger any of them
> by using the "wrong" licensing to put some of these
> out for use and have some idiot come after me
> because he accidentally rm -f'd his drive while installing one
> of my plugins.

I don't think that any license will protect you from the stupidity
of the general public. 

 
> And I honestly don't know what license I would do
> best by going with.

That's easy. I recommend to follow the same strategy as perl modules.
The license for most perl modules is as follows....

"This module is licensed under the same terms as perl itself."

so you could possibly say something like 

"This Slashcode plugin is licensed under the same terms as slashcode itself".

If you really want some fake protection then employ a lawyer.




Alex McLintock
www.DiverseBooks.com



=====
Alex McLintock        al...@OW...    Open Source Consultancy in London
OpenWeb Analysts Ltd, http://www.OWAL.co.uk/ 
SF and Computing Book News and Reviews: http://news.diversebooks.com/
Get Your XML T-Shirt <t-shirt/> at http://www.inversity.co.uk/

____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk
or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie

Re: [Slashcode-general] licensing issues information?

[Chris N. <pu...@po...>]

At 08:49 -0400 2001.08.24, shane wrote:
>Is there a website or other online resource that
>explains all the different licenses available, and the
>issues that come with each?
>
>I've got a number of plugins written, or atleast
>being written. I plan to put them all out at no cost
>because slash itself is free (atleast the calendar
>and photo gallery plugins).
>
>But, I've got a wife, home, kids, and a small
>side business. I don't want to endanger any of them
>by using the "wrong" licensing to put some of these
>out for use and have some idiot come after me
>because he accidentally rm -f'd his drive while installing one
>of my plugins.
>
>And I honestly don't know what license I would do
>best by going with.

Some would argue that you are required to put your publically available
Slash plugin under the GPL.  I am not convinced this is true, but some
would say that.  I think that it might be worthwhile to get the legal
position of OSDN on that.  I'll try to find out.

-- 
Chris Nandor                      pu...@po...    http://pudge.net/
Open Source Development Network    pu...@os...     http://osdn.com/

[Slashcode-general] licensing issues information?

[shane <sh...@lo...>]

Is there a website or other online resource that
explains all the different licenses available, and the
issues that come with each?

I've got a number of plugins written, or atleast
being written. I plan to put them all out at no cost
because slash itself is free (atleast the calendar
and photo gallery plugins).

But, I've got a wife, home, kids, and a small
side business. I don't want to endanger any of them
by using the "wrong" licensing to put some of these
out for use and have some idiot come after me
because he accidentally rm -f'd his drive while installing one
of my plugins.

And I honestly don't know what license I would do
best by going with.

Thanks,
  Shane

Re: [Slashcode-general] Plugin compatibility with Fry

[Markus A. <mar...@ub...>]

br...@ta... wrote:
> Micah Yoder wrote:
> > > Can we confirm that slash plugins are not treated as modifying part=
 of
> > > slashcode and as such is NOT caught by the GPL virus?
> > This is my understanding.  I *could* be mistaken but I'm fairly sure =
it's
> > accurate.
> My take is that your plugin is yours. Did you copy code out of
> another piece? If not, it is yours. It is useless without Slash
> but it is yours.

It all comes down to the question if a plugin is "linked in" or just
using some clear interface to communicate with Slash. I guess you could
argue for both sides...

> Can you sell it? Go for it.

Only if it's not "linked in" - but he doesn't have to "sell it" but
could "create it" for this specific customer which then owns the rights
on the plugin. Unless the customer distributes it (which I don't think
he'll do since he wants to run it on his own server) there's no need to
know whether the plugin falls under the GPL or not.

> > BUT it does NOT say you HAVE to distribute derivative works at all.
> > As far as plugins go, they DO use other parts of the Slash system, so=
 I
> > believe they would be "infected" (for lack of a better term), just as=
 C code
> > linked with a GPL (not LGPL) library would be infected.
> Right, but we don't link and we certainly are not doing binaries.

But plugins _do_ use Slash (the module), right? IMHO this is like using
a C library... so why don't you put Slash.pm under the LGPL?

> For instance, Plastic.com has changes in it that we have never
> seen. Big deal. Someone brings this up from time to time. I don't
> care.  If they can eek out a living on them, power to them.

They're not distributing their changes, so it's obviously pretty ok what
they're doing.

Big Q: why doesn't Slash use the Perl Artistic Licence?

Markus.

--=20
                             http://www.symlink.ch/
                   Wissen Vernetzt - deutsche News f=FCr die Welt
                                       --
          Zitat des Tages: Zitat not found, C to Cancel, C to Continue.

Re: [Slashcode-general] Plugin compatibility with Fry

[Micah Y. <yo...@ho...>]

On Thursday 23 August 2001 17:30, you wrote:
> This is me speaking as me, not OSDN, not VA.

well I guess it's THEIR opinion that matters...  actually no, it's the GPL 
that matters...

> My take is that your plugin is yours. Did you copy code out of
> another piece? If not, it is yours. It is useless without Slash
> but it is yours.
> Can you sell it? Go for it.

> Right, but we don't link and we certainly are not doing binaries.

hmm.  I always figured that using a Perl module would be equivelent to 
linking a library, but maybe not.

> I'm all for people making money on Slash. I think it would be nice
> if you contribute plugins (or at least add them to the
> repository so others can find them), but that is about all.

I'm all for contributing them back.  And like I said, I'll charge him quite a 
bit less if he agrees to that.  I want Slash to be the best integrated weblog 
system possible for everyone.  With a lot of Free plugins, it will be VERY 
compelling.

-- 
Like to travel?                        http://TravTalk.org
Micah Yoder Internet Development       http://yoderdev.com

Re: [Slashcode-general] Plugin compatibility with Fry

[Brian A. <br...@ta...>]

This is me speaking as me, not OSDN, not VA.

Micah Yoder wrote:
> > Can we confirm that slash plugins are not treated as modifying part of
> > slashcode and as such is NOT caught by the GPL virus?
> This is my understanding.  I *could* be mistaken but I'm fairly sure it's
> accurate.
My take is that your plugin is yours. Did you copy code out of 
another piece? If not, it is yours. It is useless without Slash
but it is yours. 
Can you sell it? Go for it. 

> BUT it does NOT say you HAVE to distribute derivative works at all.
> As far as plugins go, they DO use other parts of the Slash system, so I
> believe they would be "infected" (for lack of a better term), just as C code
> linked with a GPL (not LGPL) library would be infected.
Right, but we don't link and we certainly are not doing binaries.

I'm all for people making money on Slash. I think it would be nice
if you contribute plugins (or at least add them to the
repository so others can find them), but that is about all.

For instance, Plastic.com has changes in it that we have never
seen. Big deal. Someone brings this up from time to time. I don't
care.  If they can eek out a living on them, power to them.
The only big thing I get pissy over is don't bundle it up and
sell it as yours without mentioning us. I would get 
pretty ticked about that.

	-Brian

Re: [Slashcode-general] Plugin compatibility with Fry

[Michael V. B. <mlv...@th...>]

On Thu, Aug 23, 2001 at 10:37:06AM +0100, Alex McLintock wrote:
> Can we confirm that slash plugins are not treated as modifying part of slashcode
> and as such is NOT caught by the GPL virus?
> 
> I'd like to be clear about this when discussing possibly slash sites with paying customers.

Merely distributing `identifiable sections of [slashcode which] are not
derived from [slashcode] ...  as part of a whole which is a work based on
[slashcode], the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of [the
GPL], whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole,
and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it'.

However, if you create a patch under some license, then your client will
be in the position of having modified GPL software which cannot be
distributed since the client was not licensed to distribute the code in
your patch.  (Unlike the MPL and several other licenses, the GPL does
not force you to distribute your personal-use modifications, just ones
that you send to third parties merged with GPLed code.)

The GPL 3 has a goal of `patching' the web service hole, so that might
change things.  Since Slash.pm doesn't specify which version of the GPL
under which it is distributed, any version can be applied.  If the GPL
version N says that it extends to all patches, modules, plugins and so
forth, then you have a problem.

I support the MIT license (`only removing copyright notices and suing is
is forbidden').

-- 
# -- Michael Van Biesbrouck,      mlv...@th...
:b^Js/\(.*\)\(,.*\):\1\(.\)\([a-z]*\)\(.\)r\(:.*\)>\3/\4\2:\1\3\4\5r\6\5>/
s/\(.*\)\(,.*\):\1\(.\)\([a-z]*\)\(.\)l\(:.*\)\(.\)>\3/\4\2:\1\3\4\5l\6>\7\5/
s/>$/>0/^J/^halt/!bb

Re: [Slashcode-general] Plugin compatibility with Fry

[Micah Y. <yo...@ho...>]

> Can we confirm that slash plugins are not treated as modifying part of
> slashcode and as such is NOT caught by the GPL virus?

This is my understanding.  I *could* be mistaken but I'm fairly sure it's 
accurate.

The GPL says that anyone you distribute the software, including derivative 
works, to MUST receive the full rights that you have under the GPL.

BUT it does NOT say you HAVE to distribute derivative works at all.

As far as plugins go, they DO use other parts of the Slash system, so I 
believe they would be "infected" (for lack of a better term), just as C code 
linked with a GPL (not LGPL) library would be infected.

Does that make sense?

-- 
Like to travel?                        http://TravTalk.org
Micah Yoder Internet Development       http://yoderdev.com

Re: [Slashcode-general] Plugin compatibility with Fry

[<al...@ya...>]

> 
> I have a client that I talked into using Slash for a fairly big idea he has.  
> He wants me to develop auction and classifieds plugins for it.  I don't 
> suppose anything like that is available already...
> 


Can we confirm that slash plugins are not treated as modifying part of slashcode
and as such is NOT caught by the GPL virus?

I'd like to be clear about this when discussing possibly slash sites with paying customers.

Alex McLintock



=====
Alex McLintock        al...@OW...    Open Source Consultancy in London
OpenWeb Analysts Ltd, http://www.OWAL.co.uk/ 
SF and Computing Book News and Reviews: http://news.diversebooks.com/
Get Your XML T-Shirt <t-shirt/> at http://www.inversity.co.uk/

____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk
or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie

Re: [Slashcode-general] Plugin compatibility with Fry

[Micah Y. <yo...@ho...>]

> > Just wondering if plugins will move easily to Fry, or if there will need
> > to be a rewrite or at least a few changes?
>
> I have plugins that I am using in both. Fry adds a few nice things to
> the PLUGIN file, but that is about all.

Cool!

I have a client that I talked into using Slash for a fairly big idea he has.  
He wants me to develop auction and classifieds plugins for it.  I don't 
suppose anything like that is available already...

I'm not sure if the plugins I develop will be released or not.  I'll try to 
talk him into that (with a discount if he allows me to release them) but it's 
really up to him.

Now I need to figure out if he can afford to pay me for this.  I think he's 
almost broke.... :-(

> Fry!  Jeez, we just got done with gettin' Bendah' working. :)

Yeah.  Hopefully the transition will be painless.  But upgrading a server 
with (so far) three sites on it... hmmm...  I hope template issues won't be 
too painful.  I guess I better try to get it all working right on my home box 
first...

And I won't upgrade until there are some good reports of 2.2 transitions. :-)

> I'll make an announcement (YASS) in the next day or two, I hope you'll 
be impressed. I have not seen any Slash site that looks quite like 
mine.

Yep, I'm impressed.  You have more creativity than I do. :-)  So far I 
haven't done a whole lot of look tweaking besides changing the colors around. 

-- 
Like to travel?                        http://TravTalk.org
Micah Yoder Internet Development       http://yoderdev.com

Re: [Slashcode-general] Plugin compatibility with Fry

[shane <sh...@lo...>]

At 01:17 PM 8/22/2001 -0700, you wrote:
>Micah Yoder wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Just wondering if plugins will move easily to Fry, or if there will need to
> > be a rewrite or at least a few changes?
>I have plugins that I am using in both. Fry adds a few nice things to
>the PLUGIN file, but that is about all.
>         -Brian

Is there any documentation as far as the changes?

I've got a few plugins I'd like to finish up & release once fry is "done" :)

  Shane

[Slashcode-general] Extra-Col Support in Fry?

[Jason H. <ja...@ne...>]

Fry!  Jeez, we just got done with gettin' Bendah' working. :)

Seriously though... I am continuously impressed with the code and even
more so that it is "free".  Thanks.  It gets better with every release.

I have made use of the extra-col feature in the pre-fry version of 
Slash (in fact, one of the developers submitted a patch for this).  

I am curious if the patch made it into the fry version?

I'll make an announcement (YASS) in the next day or two, I hope you'll 
be impressed. I have not seen any Slash site that looks quite like 
mine.


Regahds from Maine...
-jh

--
Jason Huckaby

NErock.com Webmaster
Portland, ME

Re: [Slashcode-general] Plugin compatibility with Fry

[Brian A. <br...@ta...>]

Micah Yoder wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Just wondering if plugins will move easily to Fry, or if there will need to
> be a rewrite or at least a few changes?
I have plugins that I am using in both. Fry adds a few nice things to
the PLUGIN file, but that is about all.
	-Brian