AJAX in Olympus?

Discussion of general topics related to the new version and its place in the world. Don't discuss new features, report bugs, ask for support, et cetera. Don't use this to spam for other boards or attack those boards!
Forum rules
Discussion of general topics related to the new release and its place in the world. Don't discuss new features, report bugs, ask for support, et cetera. Don't use this to spam for other boards or attack those boards!
User avatar
dhn
Registered User
Posts: 1518
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2001 8:10 am
Location: Around the corner
Contact:

Re: AJAX in Olympus?

Post by dhn » Mon Jun 12, 2006 12:06 pm

profpete wrote: Hmm.... recursive banned words... not exactly a "bug", or is it?
Not really. Usually we don't suggest replacing words with whole sentences containing the same word again. ;)

Edit: Changed the replaced text before people are starting to have too much fun with it. And remember, quick reply!

User avatar
dhn
Registered User
Posts: 1518
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2001 8:10 am
Location: Around the corner
Contact:

Re: AJAX in Olympus?

Post by dhn » Mon Jun 12, 2006 12:09 pm

dhn wrote: Edit: Changed the replaced text before people are starting to have too much fun with it. And remember, [quick-reply will not be added]!

User avatar
Eelke
Registered User
Posts: 606
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Bussum, NL
Contact:

Re: AJAX in Olympus?

Post by Eelke » Mon Jun 12, 2006 12:19 pm

TwistedWeather wrote: MUST WE GO INTO this debate AGAIN?
Umm... No. Hence these words from my post:
Eelke wrote: but let's not dwell on this point here, it has been discussed many times
So, with all due respect, I will not further go into this debate, eventhough you have some open questions for me ;) I probably should have resisted the urge to put in my personal opinion, my bad. All I was doing was pointing out that one of the major features that should use AJAX, as suggested by this thread, actually is the same as the feature that has been suggested and rejected so many times in the past, just with a different name. That was the point I was making, disregard any personal flavouring on my part :)
Last edited by Eelke on Mon Jun 12, 2006 12:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

profpete
Registered User
Posts: 140
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 10:49 pm
Location: Wales, UK

quick reply

Post by profpete » Mon Jun 12, 2006 12:24 pm

quick reply
quick reply
quick reply
quick reply
quick reply
quick reply
quick reply
quick reply
quick reply
quick reply
quick reply
quick reply
quick reply
quick reply
quick reply
quick reply
quick reply
quick reply
quick reply
quick reply

I wonder if people have got the point yet? :mrgreen:

TwistedWeather
Registered User
Posts: 169
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2004 12:32 pm

Re: [quick-reply will not be added]

Post by TwistedWeather » Mon Jun 12, 2006 1:39 pm

profpete wrote: [quick-reply will not be added]
[quick-reply will not be added]
[quick-reply will not be added]
[quick-reply will not be added]
[quick-reply will not be added]
[quick-reply will not be added]
[quick-reply will not be added]
[quick-reply will not be added]
[quick-reply will not be added]
[quick-reply will not be added]
[quick-reply will not be added]
[quick-reply will not be added]
[quick-reply will not be added]
[quick-reply will not be added]
[quick-reply will not be added]
[quick-reply will not be added]
[quick-reply will not be added]
[quick-reply will not be added]
[quick-reply will not be added]
[quick-reply will not be added]

I wonder if people have got the point yet? :mrgreen:

:roll:

I dont think your childish response was really needed.

It's too bad the developers have personal issues regarding PROGRESS. Personally i think those who dont want progress should leave this project because that is what this IS all supposed to be about. CERTAINLY NOT ABOUT PERSONAL ISSUES! I am hedgeing a guess that one or more may have a stake in a payed for BB elsewhere and is why they wont let this forum software go where IT NEEDS to go. And that is FORWARD. Too many people here have asked for that feature ( More then the SAME FEW NAY sayers who as well in some cases happen to be modders ) and YET they refuse based that use to be on a argument ( The chatroom ) that has been torn to shreads now. And i HIGHLY doubt they can produce the numbers that more people dont want it then do. Which seems to be the route now taking sence the chatroom theory has been blown out of the water.
I am sure they will come back with some retort on the progress concerning the features they have decided to add but still it isnt progress when you consider the fact that just about all the others BOTH payed for and FREE BBs have had those features and then some including the MOST POPULAR one being QR which is ignored here for the reasons i stated above. I still however do prefer this system over the rest because i do like the layout amongst other things. But seriously though i think if your a developer and dont want progress and or have issues that you should leave the project. And for those who dont want all of the newer progress/features i do believe i have seen mentioned alot of times that the 2.0+ series will still be supported and staying around. USE IT! Dont make the rest of us suffer.
Yeah it's your project but how about thinking of others instead of your OWN personal issues regarding features like this. And if by chance any of you do work for a payed for bb then i believe it would be in the best intrest of this project and community that you leave. Because you can certainly not give a objective view on development here.

And lastly on the QR thing. Let me say that i find it very un-professional and a bit childish to edit out that word such as has been done here. That alone should give clue to the number of people who do want that feature as well. If NOT there wouldnt need to be a filter on those words. ;)


Again sorry if i seem harsh not my intention. I just believe that this project shouldnt be held back for the reason's i listed above. And believe me if i knew how to do it i would and i would NEVER let my personall issues get in the way either.

ErikZ
Registered User
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2005 6:34 am

Re: AJAX in Olympus?

Post by ErikZ » Mon Jun 12, 2006 1:44 pm

Eelke wrote: Either way, as has been pointed out in this thread before, AJAX is a technology, not something you can add as a feature. You can add features that employ AJAX, but saying that it will be easier to implement AJAX features "when AJAX is added" doesn't make much sense...
Then I'd say something along the lines of "No problem! AJAX has been installed in phpBB 3 and is ready for you to create AJAX-compliant mods. ;)

NeoThermic
Registered User
Posts: 198
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2004 3:44 pm
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

Re: [quick-reply will not be added]

Post by NeoThermic » Mon Jun 12, 2006 1:55 pm

TwistedWeather wrote: It's too bad the developers have personal issues regarding PROGRESS.
Is QR progress? No, not really, its a feature. Adding it at this point is feature creep. Feature creep is anti-progress. Thus I don't think that the developers have anything against progress. By not including it at this stage of the game, they re helping 3.0's progress.
TwistedWeather wrote: I am hedgeing a guess that one or more may have a stake in a payed for BB elsewhere and is why they wont let this forum software go where IT NEEDS to go.
Hold up..! Are you seriosuly suggesting that the developers (or anyone else here who is anti QR for that matter) hold some form of stake in another forum software, so in order to further their stake in said software, they are going to intentially cripple phpBB? Did you forget to take your medication this morning?


TwistedWeather wrote: Too many people here have asked for that feature ( More then the SAME FEW NAY sayers who as well in some cases happen to be modders ) and YET they refuse based that use to be on a argument ( The chatroom ) that has been torn to shreads now.
No, the vocal minority have requested this feature. A small handfull of people keep bringing it back up, while a huge amount of people have said no, they don't want it.

TwistedWeather wrote: And i HIGHLY doubt they can produce the numbers that more people dont want it then do.

Top 5 2.0.x modifications:
  1. Attachments
  2. Cash Mod
  3. Profile Control Panel
  4. Topic Calendar
  5. Topics Anywhere

TwistedWeather wrote: I am sure they will come back with some retort on the progress concerning the features they have decided to add but still it isnt progress when you consider the fact that just about all the others BOTH payed for and FREE BBs have had those features and then some including the MOST POPULAR one being QR which is ignored here for the reasons i stated above.
So now that I've just pointed out that QR isn't as popular as you make out, where do you wish to argue next? We are phpBB, not SomeOtherForumSoftware, and we've said that we won't be adding QR. Thats all that matters right now.

TwistedWeather wrote: Yeah it's your project but how about thinking of others instead of your OWN personal issues regarding features like this. And if by chance any of you do work for a payed for bb then i believe it would be in the best intrest of this project and community that you leave. Because you can certainly not give a objective view on development here.
If we didn't want to think about others, this software wouldn't be GPL. If we didn't think about others, 3.0 wouldn't have all these nice new features. If we didn't think about others, 2.0.x would be abandond upon 3.0's release. I suggest that you have a look around you before casting accusations of who's doing what.
TwistedWeather wrote: And lastly on the QR thing. Let me say that i find it very un-professional and a bit childish to edit out that word such as has been done here.
This is the development board. A test board. While serious discussion about 3.0 goes on here, it is still a playground for development. (and if you think the QR word replace is childish, you've not seen some of the history of 2.0.x's dev board)

TwistedWeather wrote: Again sorry if i seem harsh not my intention. I just believe that this project shouldnt be held back for the reason's i listed above. And believe me if i knew how to do it i would and i would NEVER let my personall issues get in the way either.
No, you're just letting some deluded consipiracy about why QR isn't going to be included getting in the way of the fact that it won't be in 3.0.

NeoThermic
phpBB release date pool!
The NeoThermic.com... a well of information. Ask me for the bit bucket so you can drink its goodness. ||新熱です

User avatar
Eelke
Registered User
Posts: 606
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Bussum, NL
Contact:

Re: AJAX in Olympus?

Post by Eelke » Mon Jun 12, 2006 1:56 pm

Can you point to a thread where the "chatroom argument has been torn to shreds"? I wanted to stop this discussion (which I apparently started by throwing in a bit of personal opinion :oops: in an otherwise completely objective post - eventhough I did call for it not to be taken as an invitation to argue about this yet again) because it is off-topic here. However, I'm interested, and in the interest of not getting this thread locked because the old QR argument is dragged out again, I would like to have a look at older arguments that apparently negate the so-called chatroom-argument (sure I have been to chatrooms, and if you notice, I never said that I don't know the difference, it's just that an arbitrary number of users doesn't seem to know the difference, purely based on their real-world use of forum software). So we might as well move this discussion to a place where it is on-topic.
Last edited by Eelke on Mon Jun 12, 2006 2:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Eelke
Registered User
Posts: 606
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Bussum, NL
Contact:

Re: AJAX in Olympus?

Post by Eelke » Mon Jun 12, 2006 2:11 pm

ErikZ wrote: Then I'd say something along the lines of "No problem! AJAX has been installed in phpBB 3 and is ready for you to create AJAX-compliant mods. ;)
:) I was typing a response explaining how AJAX isn't something ready to be installed, but rather a technology or even a methodology. Then it hit me. You are exactly right, Olympus is AJAX-ready as it stands right now ;) The best part is, it didn't take a minute of the developers' time :)

User avatar
Acyd Burn
Posts: 1838
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2002 5:18 pm
Location: Behind You
Contact:

Re: AJAX in Olympus?

Post by Acyd Burn » Mon Jun 12, 2006 2:27 pm

I do not know where the problem is? We simply do not want QR to be a feature of phpBB3 - of course personal preferences plays a big role here too (why not?). We are doing this software in a way we think we would need it and how the majority of those using our software benefits from it - but this does not mean we have to include every requested feature. We also did not include threaded topic view, because we do not like it.

In the process of finding the right feature-set we listen to user suggestions, to users having experience in a special field (for example our moderators are better suitable for suggesting MCP changes than admins), to those having modded the code, ... Then we take our personal views, thoughts, preferences in, if this means QR is not considered as a feature than it is not considered. I for example never looked at other forum software for a specific feature - i wouldn't even think about this.

Another thing i think i need to mention:
We do not need to catch up or copy other forum systems, we do not need to match up features, we do not need to fill a market, we do not need to conquer with any other software - we are simply doing this because we love it and doing it in a way we deem suitable.

Those pushing features or wanting this out because they want to base off their work from our code to sell it or to give it to clients/customers should think twice before demanding anything. Why do we need to care about those wanting to use our code? We can't care less. If someone wants to use our code he/she has to do it on their own, figure it out on their own.

We are doing the code documentation, integration easieness, etc. solely for mod authors and those interested in phpBB. The only people who have a right to critizise us are we and our users.

Image

Locked