That's a hook...?

in effect, yes - but without the extra overhead of an actual hook.

why the heck? if you are hooking in, what the ***** do you need an include for?

Eh? I don't want to be using a hook!!

I want to use an include, so that I have one file dealing with the EU cookie issue for all my website (most of which is outside of IPB).

I don't want to use a hook, because that carries an extra server overhead.

Eh? I don't want to be using a hook!!

I want to use an include, so that I have one file dealing with the EU cookie issue for all my website (most of which is outside of IPB).

I don't want to use a hook, because that carries an extra server overhead.

there is no additional overhead more than you add.... you are the one including another file... likely off an external path no-less... I do hope you are not using relative paths.
the functionality is present to do exactly what you ask, however would they call your method/code if they did not load it?
The hook is exactly what you ask, even if you are too stubborn to use it.

there is no additional overhead more than you add.

Really? IPB have invented some code that requires no processor time?

Wow. They should sell that idea to Intel or someone, they could all retire. :lol:

the functionality is present to do exactly what you ask,

natively, it is not. Extras need to be done to IPB to get that functionality.

however would they call your method/code if they did not load it?

eh?

Dude, hooks have very very little inherent overhead. IP.Board is checking whether there are any hooks for all of the hook points anyway--if there is one, it just includes and executes it, then. You can make heavy hooks, yes, but that's only if you require them to do heavy things. In the case of a script that shows some text based on a cookie, there is no benefit to modifying your templates to include a file over simply pulling in a hook.

In fact, using a parse code or PHP block in a template is probably worse.

Really? IPB have invented some code that requires no processor time?

Wow. They should sell that idea to Intel or someone, they could all retire. :lol:

natively, it is not. Extras need to be done to IPB to get that functionality.

eh?

see IPSLib, firstly.
You are correct, it is not to PHP, it IS to IPB, and it IS exactly what you asked, custom output on every skin.
You want a php include on every skin on every page.... they call your hook class, and they call a method in that class... there is no way to have the desired functionality without that occurring.

Dude, hooks have very very little inherent overhead. IP.Board is checking whether there are any hooks for all of the hook points anyway--if there is one, it just includes and executes it, then. You can make heavy hooks, yes, but that's only if you require them to do heavy things. In the case of a script that shows some text based on a cookie, there is no benefit to modifying your templates to include a file over simply pulling in a hook.

that's simply not true. Good job I'm not daft enough to believe you. :)

The differences might be minimal, but there *ARE* differences.

That minimal gets to make a difference at peak loads.

that's simply not true. Good job I'm not daft enough to believe you. :smile:

The differences might be minimal, but there *ARE* differences.

That minimal gets to make a difference at peak loads.

only because you run an external include inside the hook file!
You are adding that additional load yourself.
it goes back to exactly what ryan said above, they are as heavy as you make them.

You want a php include on every skin on every page.... they call your hook class, and they call a method in that class... there is no way to have the desired functionality without that occurring.

incorrect, laughably incorrect.

It's probably the case that it can't be done as things stand with IPB, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be.

incorrect, laughably incorrect.

It's probably the case that it can't be done as things stand with IPB, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be.

how so? you want a php include, without a php include? the parent file, the hook, should be what you are including now rather than including it at all!

Marcher, you're getting trolled. He wants to stick in a chunk of code into all the skins with minimal effort. The best and greatest option for this is a template hook. He is refusing to do this and justifies his assertions with what you and I know to be irrational logic. As if that wasn't enough indication that he's a troll, you only need to look at his first post where he thinks he understands the world and all its politics. I try not to be rude here, but you're literally dealing with someone who has a superiority complex. It's either that or a case of ignorance incarnate. Either way why waste your time with this? You've given him a viable solution. He insists on travelling down his own path fueled by stubbornness. Just ignore him. The content of his posts have already categorized him for what he is and no matter how hard you try you can't convince those who refuse to listen.

You're right, it was stupid of me to think that working for years as a professional web developer with IP.Board and very-high-traffic websites means anything. I apologize; obviously you know this best.

You're right, it was stupid of me to think that working for years as a professional web developer with IP.Board and very-high-traffic websites means anything. I apologize; obviously you know this best.

Your sarcasm is going to backfire and you'll just be feeding his ego.

only because you run an external include inside the hook file!

You are adding that additional load yourself.

it goes back to exactly what ryan said above, they are as heavy as you make them.

if I could run the include without the hook, then there is no load from the hook. The hook has an overhead of its own, outside of what might be done within that 'hook' (or, alternatively, 'include').

The additional load comes from the hook, nowhere else.

My way:-
1. load include file.
1. run include code ('do process').

hook way:-
1. is there a hook?
2. load hook
3. 'do process'

Tell me again that they're the same. :lol:

how so? you want a php include, without a php include? the parent file, the hook, should be what you are including now rather than including it at all!

No, I want a php include. JUST a php include.

There would be no 'parent file' - which would be a IPB hook. That has an extra overhead of it's own, before getting to what the hook might do (either internally, or externally by loading in a php-include).

if I could run the include without the hook, then there is no load from the hook. The hook has an overhead of its own, outside of what might be done within that 'hook' (or, alternatively, 'include').

The additional load comes from the hook, nowhere else.

My way:-

1. load include file.

1. run include code ('do process').

hook way:-

1. is there a hook?

2. load hook

3. 'do process'

Tell me again that they're the same. :lol:

... do WHAT? a simple check against the hook point? Calling this topic getting locked now, dibs.
If you think that simple if statement warrants avoidance you need your head checked.
there is no need to include another file in the hook, that is your stubbornness.

if I could run the include without the hook, then there is no load from the hook. The hook has an overhead of its own, outside of what might be done within that 'hook' (or, alternatively, 'include').

The additional load comes from the hook, nowhere else.

My way:-

1. load include file.

1. run include code ('do process').

hook way:-

1. is there a hook?

2. load hook

3. 'do process'

Tell me again that they're the same. :lol:

That's not really how a hook works.

Marcher, you're getting trolled.

:rolleyes:

The default words of someone too stupid to engage their brain.

He wants to stick in a chunk of code into all the skins with minimal effort.

correct.

The best and greatest option for this is a template hook.

as currently exists, yes. It's the only option.

My first post was to say I wished there was another, better option. Because there *ARE* better options, if they were built into the IPB code.

He is refusing to do this and justifies his assertions with what you and I know to be irrational logic.

It's not irrational to want the simplist solution which creates the least server load.

It is irrational to be unable to recognise that things can be done in different, and sometimes better, ways.

As if that wasn't enough indication that he's a troll, you only need to look at his first post where he thinks he understands the world and all its politics.

:rolleyes:

No, I just understand one-sided stupid views are not the only views. Given that this thread is full of one-sided stupid views I thought I'd offer up an alternative, as a way of perhaps pointing out others stupidity.

Not everyone is so stupid to think that any action a nation state or supranational organisation might make is automatically bad, or even purposeless. :)

I try not to be rude here, but you're literally dealing with someone who has a superiority complex.

no, just someone with 30 years of computing experience who wishes to mqake optimum use of his already busy servers.

It's either that or a case of ignorance incarnate.

the stupid are those who cannot think because they'rew blinded by their prejudices. ;)

You've given him a viable solution.

it is not a viable solution within my working parameters - which is what I'm trying to get thru to people here. :rolleyes:

I see we've devolved to name-calling.