Cause i searched hours in this forum and didn't find it anywhere to download ...
Nov 10, 2000, 4:35 PM
Administrator (9387 posts)
Nov 10, 2000, 4:35 PM
Post #2 of 15
Views: 6360
Hi,
We are creating a review plugin that will work in the new version. Expect it to come out 1 to 2 weeks after the official release. We also have a multi threaded spider that will be available shortly after as a plugin.
Cheers,
Alex
--
Gossamer Threads Inc.
We are creating a review plugin that will work in the new version. Expect it to come out 1 to 2 weeks after the official release. We also have a multi threaded spider that will be available shortly after as a plugin.
Cheers,
Alex
--
Gossamer Threads Inc.
Nov 10, 2000, 6:33 PM
Enthusiast (577 posts)
Nov 10, 2000, 6:33 PM
Post #3 of 15
Views: 6342
excellent.
(are plugins free by the way?)
also, how will it work, will reviews be able to be set to be validated, and perhaps linked with the editors so that they can validate reviews in their sections as well as having some other members who can validate any reviews.. ie lots of permission settings.
also, can we make it so you need to be a registered user to post reviews (like cgi-resources) and it can build up a list of all your reviews/ratings etc...
Cheers.
http://www.ASciFi.com/ - The Science Fiction Portal
(are plugins free by the way?)
also, how will it work, will reviews be able to be set to be validated, and perhaps linked with the editors so that they can validate reviews in their sections as well as having some other members who can validate any reviews.. ie lots of permission settings.
also, can we make it so you need to be a registered user to post reviews (like cgi-resources) and it can build up a list of all your reviews/ratings etc...
Cheers.
http://www.ASciFi.com/ - The Science Fiction Portal
Nov 10, 2000, 6:45 PM
Administrator (9387 posts)
Nov 10, 2000, 6:45 PM
Post #4 of 15
Views: 6347
Right now the review module is not tied to the editor system but rather a simple review posted and attached to both a link and a user. You can view all users reviews as well as all links reviews.
Cheers,
Alex
--
Gossamer Threads Inc.
Nov 11, 2000, 2:53 PM
Veteran / Moderator (6956 posts)
Nov 11, 2000, 2:53 PM
Post #5 of 15
Views: 6339
Alex,
Again... PLEASE... abstract the User database so that it can be put into another databse in a simple fashion!!
It would be wonderful if this abstraction would apply to all tables, but specifically, the User/Sessions table there are multiple reasons to put it in a separate database, and really all the links program does is grab a record from it, or updated a record from it, once per iteration. Should be reasonably easy and straight forward for someone who knows the code.
Also, the "plug ins" such as the banners should be able to be abstracted out as well, if they run through links. But, this is not as much of a problem, since it's a "caller" program into a page, for the most part. But, being able to tie it to the User database/preferences/history would be a great thing as well.
Not asking you to write all this stuff (much of it is being done by others) but leaving it open for _easy_ integration into the program would be wonderful.
PUGDOGŪ
PUGDOGŪ Enterprises, Inc.
FAQ: http://postcards.com/FAQ
Again... PLEASE... abstract the User database so that it can be put into another databse in a simple fashion!!
It would be wonderful if this abstraction would apply to all tables, but specifically, the User/Sessions table there are multiple reasons to put it in a separate database, and really all the links program does is grab a record from it, or updated a record from it, once per iteration. Should be reasonably easy and straight forward for someone who knows the code.
Also, the "plug ins" such as the banners should be able to be abstracted out as well, if they run through links. But, this is not as much of a problem, since it's a "caller" program into a page, for the most part. But, being able to tie it to the User database/preferences/history would be a great thing as well.
Not asking you to write all this stuff (much of it is being done by others) but leaving it open for _easy_ integration into the program would be wonderful.
PUGDOGŪ
PUGDOGŪ Enterprises, Inc.
FAQ: http://postcards.com/FAQ
Nov 11, 2000, 3:10 PM
Administrator (9387 posts)
Nov 11, 2000, 3:10 PM
Post #6 of 15
Views: 6365
Hi!
The user database is abstracted. You can integrate both sessions and authentication with Links SQL not only from another SQL table, but from any method be it server based authentication, flat file sessiosns, username/password lookup in text files like ubb, etc.
Links SQL still needs to maintain its own information about users that it needs to store somewhere. It doesn't make sense, and may not even be possible to store that information in somewhere outside of Links SQL's control.
To integrate with another database you simply plug the calls to add and del users, authenticate sesions and change passwords into the Authenticate module. I will make this editable from the admin though.
I see this as the most extensible way. We can provide several pre-built Authenticate modules to connect to a variety of sources like vbulletin, wwwthreads, or whatever.
Or am I not understanding what you are asking?
Cheers,
Alex
--
Gossamer Threads Inc.
The user database is abstracted. You can integrate both sessions and authentication with Links SQL not only from another SQL table, but from any method be it server based authentication, flat file sessiosns, username/password lookup in text files like ubb, etc.
Links SQL still needs to maintain its own information about users that it needs to store somewhere. It doesn't make sense, and may not even be possible to store that information in somewhere outside of Links SQL's control.
To integrate with another database you simply plug the calls to add and del users, authenticate sesions and change passwords into the Authenticate module. I will make this editable from the admin though.
I see this as the most extensible way. We can provide several pre-built Authenticate modules to connect to a variety of sources like vbulletin, wwwthreads, or whatever.
Or am I not understanding what you are asking?
Cheers,
Alex
--
Gossamer Threads Inc.
Nov 11, 2000, 3:19 PM
Veteran (17240 posts)
Nov 11, 2000, 3:19 PM
Post #7 of 15
Views: 6323
The problem with that, pugdog, is that people on virtual machines may only have one MySQL database. I, for example, had only one database allotted to my account and I had to pay additional one-time fees to create additional databases.
I would recommend keeping it flexible enough for a larger pool of users who may not have the luxury of multiple databases.
Regards,
Eliot Lee
I would recommend keeping it flexible enough for a larger pool of users who may not have the luxury of multiple databases.
Regards,
Eliot Lee
Nov 11, 2000, 3:24 PM
Veteran / Moderator (6956 posts)
Nov 11, 2000, 3:24 PM
Post #8 of 15
Views: 6305
Eliot -- the _option_ of moving the User information out of the main database.
Most people would keep it all together, but those sites that start to modularize or add features, have a real reason to move the user information into a different area.
PUGDOGŪ
PUGDOGŪ Enterprises, Inc.
FAQ: http://postcards.com/FAQ
Most people would keep it all together, but those sites that start to modularize or add features, have a real reason to move the user information into a different area.
PUGDOGŪ
PUGDOGŪ Enterprises, Inc.
FAQ: http://postcards.com/FAQ
Nov 11, 2000, 3:29 PM
Veteran / Moderator (6956 posts)
Nov 11, 2000, 3:29 PM
Post #9 of 15
Views: 6315
We might just be missing each other.
Right now, the mod to Links I've done, is 90% changing the .def file to point to another database, and then 10% changing the Authenticate routine to disconnect from the existing database _if_ there is a connection, grab the user data (which creates a connect) then disconnecting from the database so that when the &authenticate routine returns, it has a hash record of the user, but the _next_ access creates a new connection to the database which is the "local" one for that copy of links.
The problem with DBSQL.pm is that once it makes a connection, it reuses it. This simple process of getting the user data, then disconnecting allowed the user of two databases.
Are you following?
The information is all available to links, it's just that it looks in a different database for the User information.
With the 1.1x version, I had to do a disconnect if connected, then grab a new object, then release that object before leaving the routine. By doing that, the rest of the program didn't care if the User/sessions table was somewhere else.
PUGDOGŪ
PUGDOGŪ Enterprises, Inc.
FAQ: http://postcards.com/FAQ
Right now, the mod to Links I've done, is 90% changing the .def file to point to another database, and then 10% changing the Authenticate routine to disconnect from the existing database _if_ there is a connection, grab the user data (which creates a connect) then disconnecting from the database so that when the &authenticate routine returns, it has a hash record of the user, but the _next_ access creates a new connection to the database which is the "local" one for that copy of links.
The problem with DBSQL.pm is that once it makes a connection, it reuses it. This simple process of getting the user data, then disconnecting allowed the user of two databases.
Are you following?
The information is all available to links, it's just that it looks in a different database for the User information.
With the 1.1x version, I had to do a disconnect if connected, then grab a new object, then release that object before leaving the routine. By doing that, the rest of the program didn't care if the User/sessions table was somewhere else.
PUGDOGŪ
PUGDOGŪ Enterprises, Inc.
FAQ: http://postcards.com/FAQ
Jan 17, 2001, 1:25 AM
User (453 posts)
Jan 17, 2001, 1:25 AM
Post #12 of 15
Views: 6143
I'm with you Padders :)
This modification will mean the world to my upgrading to Links SQL. I've owned a Links SQL license for well over a year and have never used it because of the lack of features like a review feature.
If I could tie this into my VB forums user database, as well as the gossamer mail system...I will be one happy camper.
P a i n t b a l l C i t y . c o m
http://www.paintballcity.com
This modification will mean the world to my upgrading to Links SQL. I've owned a Links SQL license for well over a year and have never used it because of the lack of features like a review feature.
If I could tie this into my VB forums user database, as well as the gossamer mail system...I will be one happy camper.
P a i n t b a l l C i t y . c o m
http://www.paintballcity.com
Jan 17, 2001, 5:53 PM
Enthusiast (577 posts)
Jan 17, 2001, 5:53 PM
Post #13 of 15
Views: 6064
yup. i hope we get some more developers around here to create plugins. Pugdog is brilliant but can't do it all :) (a few free licenses to developers perhaps alex???)
I am worried that the review plugin is not going to be powerful enough. It really needs a validation flag, customizable fields, graphical stats (widgetz bar char thing).
I would also like to see reviews mapable to multiple link ids. Not sure how the table structure would work but the basic idea is that you could set it up so that link ids 56,4554,2343 and say 3342 all share the same review set. A reivew on 2343 shows up under 4554 and vice versa. Just a mapping similiar to the link --> category table i guess.
The more of these plugins avaliable the more links 2.0 users will upgrade. At the moment, any links 2.0 user is going to loose an awful lot of features on their site if they "upgrade". I doubt i would have if i wastn't starting afresh.
I am sure they will come eventually but looking forward to it :)
http://www.ASciFi.com/ - The Science Fiction Portal
I am worried that the review plugin is not going to be powerful enough. It really needs a validation flag, customizable fields, graphical stats (widgetz bar char thing).
I would also like to see reviews mapable to multiple link ids. Not sure how the table structure would work but the basic idea is that you could set it up so that link ids 56,4554,2343 and say 3342 all share the same review set. A reivew on 2343 shows up under 4554 and vice versa. Just a mapping similiar to the link --> category table i guess.
The more of these plugins avaliable the more links 2.0 users will upgrade. At the moment, any links 2.0 user is going to loose an awful lot of features on their site if they "upgrade". I doubt i would have if i wastn't starting afresh.
I am sure they will come eventually but looking forward to it :)
http://www.ASciFi.com/ - The Science Fiction Portal
Jan 18, 2001, 2:49 PM
Veteran / Moderator (6956 posts)
Jan 18, 2001, 2:49 PM
Post #15 of 15
Views: 6075
Once people get more familiar with the plug-in system, and some changes (updates) to it are made (or explained) then there will be more things available. Right now, hooking into major features is possible, but at some times overriding them completely may be the solution. That is possible using the "STOP" feature of the pre-hooks, but it's still yet to be tried <G>.
PUGDOGŪ
PUGDOGŪ Enterprises, Inc.
FAQ: http://pugdog.com/FAQ