Rimi Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 The design looks like metro and many people doesn't like the metro design..Many people don't like change.
Killoneworld Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 Many people don't like change. Many people like change. :)
Rick L Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 >This! Ability to specify SSL advertisement codeGoogle Ads does not have an SSL version of its advertisement code, and including their advertisements on secure pages can lead to browser warnings for your visitors. This is especially troublesome when you only use SSL for logins or for your store (IP.Nexus), as it gives an impression that the page is not secure. Now, you can specify an alternative secure page advertisement code if you wish, or choose not to show a specific advertisement on secure pages at all. Has been the causation for a twitchy eye - and is by far strict to adsense. Along with the rest of the post, looking forward to the great changes coming in 4.0 IP.Content and IP.Nexus - specifically in hopes of breaking away from the current requirements for domain sales and server settings.
Adriano Faria Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 Will IPB 3.4 language packs work in IPB 4.0? They already said a few times: no... and it is on announcement: Will 3.x skins/hooks/language packs/etc. work in 4.0? Version 4.0 is a large update and many areas are changing to be more modern and functional. Therefore, things that work in 3.x will not work in 4.0. http://community.invisionpower.com/forum-431/announcement-30-what-new-in-ips-community-suite-40/
Midnight Modding Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 See, that's what I mean... Some decisions like that are really bad ones. There's no reason they couldn't convert those. Some people spend literally days translating lang bits. And try to make it as easy as possible to get apps ready. I like most decisions they make about features, but most anything someone has to do to convert something is made unnecessarily difficult. For instance, for in_dev they say flat out it's not supported and is basically for them and so if it's buggy, oh well. Then people wonder why I do many things straight in xml files instead of the ACP.
Management Charles Posted March 17, 2014 Management Posted March 17, 2014 See, that's what I mean... Some decisions like that are really bad ones. There's no reason they couldn't convert those. Some people spend literally days translating lang bits and try to make it as easy as possible to get apps ready. I like most decisions they make about features, but most anything someone has to do to convert something is made unnecessarily difficult. For instance, for in_dev they say flat out it's not supported and is basically for them and so if it's buggy, oh well. Then people wonder why I do many things straight in xml files instead of the ACP. Well actually there are technical reasons we cannot convert existing language strings over. You shouldn't make such broad statements without any knowledge of what you're speaking to. You make it sound like we just decided, on a whim, to not do something.
Midnight Modding Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 Well actually there are technical reasons we cannot convert existing language strings over. You shouldn't make such broad statements without any knowledge of what you're speaking to. You make it sound like we just decided, on a whim, to not do something. But you could have done whatever the new system is with this in mind. Sometimes changes aren't worth the hassle they would cause. I'm just hoping IPS considers this when making some decisions, where it won't be painful updating things, whether it be someone making an app or someone translating for their own board or whatnot. Those lang files sometimes have thousands of lines.
TSP Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 But you could have done whatever the new system is with this in mind. Sometimes changes aren't worth the hassle they would cause. I'm just hoping IPS considers this when making some decisions, where it won't be painful updating things, whether it be someone making an app or someone translating for their own board or whatnot. Those lang files sometimes have thousands of lines. There are thousands of language strings. There is no way IPS would be able to convert it in a sensible manner. The theme is redesigned, they have probarbly also gotten a few ideas on how they could explain things in a more user friendly manner etc. It's not reasonable to expect that IPS should have to make language from 3.X supported. There would simply be too much work that would have to be put into it and other areas of the code rework would've suffered from it. Then it's simply better to start from scratch. So they don't have to "work around" old language strings while designing a new look and feel.
Invisionary Posted March 17, 2014 Posted March 17, 2014 Wow. 50 pages on "When is IPB 4.0?" When has "when it's ready" been a more appropriate reply? It's a piece of software that is a work in progress. Let "when it's ready" be the final answer. Really, people... get a life.
TwistedMerlin Posted March 18, 2014 Posted March 18, 2014 Really, people... get a life. Really, that's uncalled for.
Midnight Modding Posted March 18, 2014 Posted March 18, 2014 TSP, like I said, they didn't have to change the setup of languages enough to ruin those large files. So you're going to go copy and paste thousands and thousands of lang bits one by one into a new format? The way it's being worded makes it sound like it's not going to be something simple to change and then they'll all be there, but rather it sounds like it's going to be a case of having to manually change things thousands of times for each app. I bet they didn't go through each lang string of their first party apps and one by one redo each one. If it's as simple as changing how or where it imports them from a file to where the GENERAL structure is all that has to change, that's one thing, or if there is some tool to help, but if it's true that each string has to be changed, that's not a good idea, to say the least, no matter what benefit there is (which will be little). Funny you mention there are thousands so it's not right to expect them to do anything for them, but we're expected to do it ourselves, which is even worse. I bet I have 100,000 lang strings, so I should expect to go change things with 100,000 copy and pastes? Also there have been times where every post had to be updated during an upgrade, so yes they have altered thousands of rows of data in other upgrades. And they have to do something with all the current rows of lang bits in the DB. Every new version should be easier to convert old apps to, and instead it's going in reverse, apparently.
Rhett Posted March 18, 2014 Posted March 18, 2014 TSP, like I said, they didn't have to change the setup of languages enough to ruin those large files. So you're going to go copy and paste thousands and thousands of lang bits one by one into a new format? The way it's being worded makes it sound like it's not going to be something simple to change and then they'll all be there, but rather it sounds like it's going to be a case of having to manually change things thousands of times for each app. I bet they didn't go through each lang string of their first party apps and one by one redo each one. If it's as simple as changing how or where it imports them from a file to where the GENERAL structure is all that has to change, that's one thing, or if there is some tool to help, but if it's true that each string has to be changed, that's not a good idea, to say the least, no matter what benefit there is (which will be little). Funny you mention there are thousands so it's not right to expect them to do anything for them, but we're expected to do it ourselves, which is even worse. I bet I have 100,000 lang strings, so I should expect to go change things with 100,000 copy and pastes? Also there have been times where every post had to be updated during an upgrade, so yes they have altered thousands of rows of data in other upgrades. And they have to do something with all the current rows of lang bits in the DB. Every new version should be easier to convert old apps to, and instead it's going in reverse, apparently. Nobody is forcing you to do anything, you don't have to make a language pack for 4.0, if it's not something you have the time or desire to do, you can chose not to do it. Charles has already addressed your concerns though, you are assuming there are no valid reasons for these changes without any information on why they were made. I would recommend that if you want to continue debating this, that you start a support ticket on this rather then this topic. Thank you
Midnight Modding Posted March 18, 2014 Posted March 18, 2014 so everyone can mention their concerns, except me. ok then.
Davyc Posted March 18, 2014 Posted March 18, 2014 There have been some valid concerns expressed and, for a few (not all), an explanation has been given (whether those explanations were satisfactory or not will be a personal matter) As for 'work in progress' - we have been told, when asking 'when is it going to be ready' we've has 'this year' (referring to 2013); we've had 'late 2013 early 2014' and now it's Q2 2014 which can be anything up to the end of June. So I don't think that's it's unreasonable for people to raise or express their concerns - it's not done for the sake of it, it's done out of concern; that last word being the operative word. Midnight Modding has raised a genuine concern - there are, as stated, technical reasons for his concern not to be addressed, but they haven't been explained - although I'm not a developer I can understand his concerns and that they may have a far reaching effect on other developers. Sweeping statements such as 'Nobody is forcing you to do anything ...' from a member of staff gives the impression 'we don't care'; though I would like to believe that is not the case. As for a 'life' - yeah I have a life and I have a vision for a new site which I can't implement using 3.4.6 (for the many reasons I stated in this and other topics) so my project is on hold and has been since late 2013. I have a choice, wait for 4 or go with another solution. Presently I am in the process of moving home so it would be unrealistic for me to start anything now; that's good fortune for IPS (though it may not be viewed as such) as they still have me as a client-in-waiting. I've said it in a previous post - if this project was of such an undertaking that the projected deadlines could not realistically be met (allowing for a small percentage of slippage) then announcing 4.0.0 in February of last year (2013) was not a smart move. Additionally because it is a complete overhaul we are told at this late hour that existing mods and skins will not work - those last words must be the nightmare of all nightmares for those developing mods/skins and those using them. The lack of information, both visual and technical, has lead to many people expressing their concerns - only to be lambasted by those who either don't care about other people's concerns or who will stick with 3.4.6 until they're forced to upgrade - most likely when support ceases for 3.x.x Perhaps a wise move coming from IPS to help those wanting to develop for 4.0.0 would be to open up a developers forum accessible only to developers where they can ask their technical questions and receive technical answers so they are prepared for what's to come and not be left hanging in the air until the last hour. :thumbsup:
Soniceffect Posted March 18, 2014 Posted March 18, 2014 Incidentally, I did the move from IPB early in 3.4.x series for very similar reasons as above. I will show you my path:- Move from IPB 3.4.0 to xenforo Move from xenforo to vbulletin because does do enough and not being developed quick enough (no mark on them, they are just too young a company) Move from vbulletin to IPB 3.4.x So basically I moved from a shiny IPB forum because of annoyances during an update, moved from one software to the next and ended up on IPB currently. Conclusion: Pointless. Better off sticking it out.
Management Matt Posted March 18, 2014 Management Posted March 18, 2014 Midnight Modding has raised a genuine concern - there are, as stated, technical reasons for his concern not to be addressed, but they haven't been explained - although I'm not a developer I can understand his concerns and that they may have a far reaching effect on other developers. Sweeping statements such as 'Nobody is forcing you to do anything ...' from a member of staff gives the impression 'we don't care'; though I would like to believe that is not the case. IPS 4 is a completely new product that has been rewritten from the ground up. There is very little code used from the IPB 3.x codebase. All the interfaces have changed, so while there may be some common strings such as "post", "forums" and so on, the actual form labelling has changed dramatically. The new IPS 4 framework has "helpers" for forms and tables, and these "helpers" require the language keys to be in a specific format so they are automatically used. We've put a lot of focus on labelling to make sure its consistent, so we almost always use positive phrasing "Enable this feature" whereas IPB 3 used mostly negative phrasing "Disable this feature" and so on. IPS 4 is a new product that shares only its DNA with IPB 3.x. This means that existing mods, themes, languages and so on are not compatible in any way. We understand that this will mean that translators will need to start again which is why we're keen to give contributors early access to beta releases so they can make a start on there IPS 4 code.
Graphite Posted March 18, 2014 Posted March 18, 2014 Hope the code is cleaner. Ctrl + U does not look pretty on IPB 3.x
Davyc Posted March 18, 2014 Posted March 18, 2014 Incidentally, I did the move from IPB early in 3.4.x series for very similar reasons as above. I will show you my path:- Move from IPB 3.4.0 to xenforo Move from xenforo to vbulletin because does do enough and not being developed quick enough (no mark on them, they are just too young a company) Move from vbulletin to IPB 3.4.x So basically I moved from a shiny IPB forum because of annoyances during an update, moved from one software to the next and ended up on IPB currently. Conclusion: Pointless. Better off sticking it out. My own experience is similar, though a lot more involved. We're ever on the lookout for something better, something that will cover all bases; but it's an almost futile task because there will always be something to like or dislike about a chosen software. I started with IPB back in 2002 and my last site was based on IPB 3.4.x - in between I've tried them all (including Xenforo and vBulletin - and vB5) and they all have something nice to offer, but none of them offer it all. So you have to decide what you 'need' as opposed to what you 'want' and ensure that those needs meet both your own expectations and those of your prospective clients. On the face of it 4.0.0 is breaking new ground and that's exciting for many reasons, but will it fulfil all of your needs? Will it offer a new 'positive' experience to both admins and clients alike? That's something that remains to be seen. What's been revealed so far is OK but nothing much that hasn't been done before elsewhere - admittedly it's approach is different, but the end result remains the same. The one bleeding edge factor that has been revealed for 4.0.0 is that each of the applications can work independently of each other and that is something genuinely different - how people will implement that choice also remains to be seen. One of life's lessons I have learned is to try and see both sides and find a middle ground; it's not always easy, but everyone should try it at some point. Not everything is one-sided and that is especially so in business - never, ever, tick your clients off to prove a point because all you will see is their backs as they walk out the door. Unification and collaboration is always more productive than chaos and confrontation. :thumbsup:
Midnight Modding Posted March 18, 2014 Posted March 18, 2014 Well, I wasn't meaning to make a big deal. It's just stressful when you have so many lines to change around. When functionality for hooks and apps became available, I thought IPS was trending towards making things easier when moving forward (other than obviously needing to do changes in the php files, but I thought xmls would keep a similar format). I'm so stressed from testing updates on my app, I don't even want to think about future work. lol I have sat here working so long and hard today, my back is really hurting. I had to do test brackets for 6 different types of brackets and I had to go through selecting winners for matchups literally hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of times to be totally sure I didn't typo on any of the countless possible winners of matchups and then I had to put them back to default again and do it all over again. (I know off topic, but seriously that was painful and I'll probably have to do it all over again for 4.0 and can't simplify anything or it is asking for bugs.)
Management Matt Posted March 18, 2014 Management Posted March 18, 2014 Well, I wasn't meaning to make a big deal. It's just stressful when you have so many lines to change around. When functionality for hooks and apps became available, I thought IPS was trending towards making things easier when moving forward (other than obviously needing to do changes in the php files, but I thought xmls would keep a similar format). I'm so stressed from testing updates on my app, I don't even want to think about future work. lol I have sat here working so long and hard today, my back is really hurting. I had to do test brackets for 6 different types of brackets and I had to go through selecting winners for matchups literally hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of times to be totally sure I didn't typo on any of the countless possible winners of matchups and then I had to put them back to default again and do it all over again. (I know off topic, but seriously that was painful and I'll probably have to do it all over again for 4.0 and can't simplify anything or it is asking for bugs.) I would consider IPS 4 a clean start rather than an upgrade in terms of your own modifications. Of course, you can always re-use logic and centralised classes if you have them, but in terms of trying to map A to B, I wouldn't do that as it'll probably take longer. The new framework is really good though and you'll find lots of code you have to maintain now can be removed. ACP forms, for example are very easy now; tables of things and node trees also. Embrace it!
Rimi Posted March 18, 2014 Posted March 18, 2014 Embrace it!I don't know about you but I don't go around and randomly hug things. I need to get to know it first. So give ips 4 to us so I can be more open to embracing it. :3
We are Borg Posted March 18, 2014 Posted March 18, 2014 I would consider IPS 4 a clean start rather than an upgrade in terms of your own modifications. Of course, you can always re-use logic and centralised classes if you have them, but in terms of trying to map A to B, I wouldn't do that as it'll probably take longer. The new framework is really good though and you'll find lots of code you have to maintain now can be removed. ACP forms, for example are very easy now; tables of things and node trees also. Embrace it! Can you give examples how the new framework is better then the old one. As for the language files its a shame the old once can't be reused but re-mapping them or write code to get the old stuff working again can be more harmful then beneficial you want less legacy code in the new system as possible.Is it possible that the language files be given in advanced so the community can start translating, that way we have some head start.
Rikki Posted March 18, 2014 Posted March 18, 2014 Additionally because it is a complete overhaul we are told at this late hour that existing mods and skins will not work - those last words must be the nightmare of all nightmares for those developing mods/skins and those using them. Perhaps a wise move coming from IPS to help those wanting to develop for 4.0.0 would be to open up a developers forum accessible only to developers where they can ask their technical questions and receive technical answers so they are prepared for what's to come and not be left hanging in the air until the last hour. To address these two points - we've been clear with our contributors from the start that 4.0 is a major upgrade and that existing addons won't work. We have a developer forum, where contributors have posted questions, and we've also held live chats with them (and we'll continue doing those in the lead up to and after release). We'll have extensive documentation available (some of which has already been published to contributors) and be on hand to assist them. We aren't leaving them hanging until the last hour.
Davyc Posted March 18, 2014 Posted March 18, 2014 To address these two points - we've been clear with our contributors from the start that 4.0 is a major upgrade and that existing addons won't work. We have a developer forum, where contributors have posted questions, and we've also held live chats with them (and we'll continue doing those in the lead up to and after release). We'll have extensive documentation available (some of which has already been published to contributors) and be on hand to assist them. We aren't leaving them hanging until the last hour. I'm playing devil's advocate here because I'm not a developer, but if this is so why are some developers getting stressed if this information has been made available to them? Are ALL developers included or only selected developers? More curious than anything lol. :rofl:
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.