Jump to content

Community

Michael

+Clients
  • Posts

    23,637
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    114

 Content Type 

Profiles

Downloads

IPS4 Providers

Release Notes

IPS4 Guides

IPS4 Developer Documentation

Invision Community Blog

Forums

Store

Entry Comments posted by Michael

  1. Right now the developer enters a URL but integration with the marketplace is something we're very keen on.

     

    Just so folks are aware, there's an app I created in the Marketplace that makes it very easy for developers to do this, and will be updated for 4.0 as soon as possible:

     

     
    I just wanted to throw this out there so as to prevent people from being discouraged that providing this update URL would be a complicated process for them.  With this app, you just enter in the details of your product in a UI in the Admin CP and it generates an update URL for you which you can provide with your product.  You can then update the info about your product in your site's Admin CP as needed and the URL will automatically return that there's an update available if necessary.
  2. As I said many times in tickets about the way how languages are exported. When I upload a translation in 90% of the cases the language is not fully uploaded, sometimes it gives error as it takes to long to upload. Some error like memory limit exceded. Basiclly to be simplest as posible maybe as xml not xml.gz ...

     

    This has already been discussed here: http://community.invisionpower.com/blog/4445/entry-9557-40-rethinking-xml-handling/

  3. Could I get some clarification on the directory structure?  Will the source code that makes up an application (everything under /admin/applications_addon/other/*** today) still be under a directory that is not ever intended to be accessible to someone fiddling with the URL?  What about the stuff an application provides that has to be publicly accessible, like javascript files, CSS, and images?  Obviously the browser needs to be able to load those, so the URL to them needs to be publicly available, but I would guess it still needs to be separated from the other application files like it is currently done today.

     

    I guess my issue is, you make it seem like an application is going to put everything under one directory in 4.0, but I'm not sure how that can be accomplished while allowing public stuff to be public and protecting the non-public stuff.

  4. [quote name='bfarber' timestamp='1325260062']
    Behind the scenes, IP.Content is providing a hook that overwrites the skin_global -> globalTemplate primary navigation area (using some regular expressions and such - but those details aren't too important).


    This has me concerned. How exactly are you looking for the start and end of the HTML code to determine what you have to replace? I really hope you're not looking for specific HTML tags, because third party skins may design this section using different HTML elements than the stock IP.Board skin. I've encountered this problem with the hooks system trying to replace specific content on the page, there is no definitive point you can look at in the generated HTML to determine the end of the hook point.

  5. [quote name='RPGF Nowe' timestamp='1301667719']
    I wonder what Browser they use to view this stuff. Chrome/IE looks nothing like that XD. They probably use FireFox /hide.

    They're giving screenshots of the new version they haven't released yet, it looks different from what you've seen because you've never had your hands on this version.

  6. Is there any chance that link to the Moderator CP will have some sort of highlighting to indicate to the moderators that there are unapproved items? As it is right now in IP.Board 3.1, when there are active reports, the link at the top highlights in red. Looking at the first screenshot above, it doesn't appear it's doing that anymore. I worry that people are not going to see when there is stuff that needs done if there's no highlighting of the fact that there is stuff out there for them to do.

  7. [quote name='teraßyte' timestamp='1300094464']
    I'd tend to agree with you if that was a new function added but that's how it works right now, I merely expanded the "hide tab" option to support groups. If I suddenly change how it works (so that members can't access the application anymore) everyone would need to update their setup causing even more confusion.
    What you're adding is a new function, what I'm suggesting just adds on to the same concept. Before, it was a global on/off whether to show the tab. You're now adding an option that lets you show the tab for selected groups. What I would like to see in addition to that is a dropdown of all columns in the groups table that is also checked against, optionally, to see if the user has access to the application, to determine whether to show the tab.

    I understand that you probably have the coding for this wrapping up now, but seeing as how this is the first we're all getting to see that this is being changed, this is the first time anyone has the opportunity to give you feedback on it. You have to expect that someone is going to give you some more ideas based on what's being discussed here, especially since most of this seems to be things that weren't exactly requested by the community very often.

  8. [quote name='teraßyte' timestamp='1300014900']
    You got it wrong Mike, the setting is only for the TAB visibility and peoples will still be able to access it even with the tab hidden, applications will still need a setting to limit which groups can use it.
    I don't understand, surely I would want to hide the tab for groups who can't access the app. I mean, I guess one could set it up so that the tab is visible for people who can't access the app, then they get an error message when they do so, but that seems like a bad user experience to me.

    IP.Board doesn't show things like the Report Center link to people who can't access the Report Center, so why show a tab to people who can't access the tab's application?

  9. Regarding the 'Application Tab Permissions' section, a lot of apps already have a group setting coded into them indicating which groups can access the application. It would be nice if we could select a group setting (just give us a list of columns from the groups table) that indicates whether a member has application permission and show/hide the tab based on that.

    It would save us from having to code something into our upgrade scripts to convert the group setting to this new tab permission system.

  10. [quote name='Amy T' timestamp='1297372863']
    Not thrilled with this idea as I know some of these editors and this one have a bad habit of putting extra code in that you do not need or want in the post.


    On the test site for this editor it does put extra code in. The editor in the current version of IPb does not put that extra code in there which is why I like it better.

    To be honest I switched to ip.content to save me time as the editor was better.

    I'm sure they're not going to just live with it having some issue like that, they'll either work with the vendor to fix that problem or fix it themselves.

  11. Will developers need to change anything in our custom applications to support this, or will all of the old methods we use map to the way this new editor handles text?

    Any chance we can finally make certain bbcode buttons appear only in those sections where they are allowed to function? So if we say you can only use the bold bbcode in posts, the button won't show up in any other editor?

  12. Don't worry, the Skin Generator is definitely not 'done' by any stretch. There's a lot we want to do with adding more color pickers, but we need to find the best way to give lots of options to make very customized skins without making the UI too confusing for novices too.

  13. [quote name='Luke' date='04 May 2010 - 11:43 PM']
    Could you make this work as an IPB extension so you can browse it with the skin? Not permanently, but so you can get a feel for things without having to add different views?

    That would be very cool, I don't know how feasible it would be. Right now, nothing is really saved that could be reused, the preview is rewritten dynamically from a static HTML page for each view. To make it work as an extension of this site, I'd have to be saving the actual recolored images and CSS files somewhere, and that could end up being a lot of space that needs used.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We use technologies, such as cookies, to customise content and advertising, to provide social media features and to analyse traffic to the site. We also share information about your use of our site with our trusted social media, advertising and analytics partners. See more about cookies and our Privacy Policy