[RFC|Accepted] Avatar improvements, Gravatar

[Sam]

This comes mainly out of a tracker post naderman made, which simply proposes the idea of interfacing with external avatar services, namely Gravatar.
http://tracker.phpbb.com/browse/PHPBB3-9498

I propose a patch, which at this time has been packed in a MODX file compatible with phpBB 3.0 for your viewing pleasure. (Download)

This is a very simple edit, all it does is add a new constant (avatar type), create a new function handle the Gravatars, and last but not least, creates an option on the user control panel to use the Gravatar associated with the user's email.

Ticket: http://tracker.phpbb.com/browse/PHPBB3-9498
Patch: https://github.com/ckwalsh/phpbb3/tree/ ... %2Favatars

[igorw]

Since this touches the same subject, I'd like to suggest something similar to what I said here.

One of the things preventing phpBB to run in cluster ("cloud") environments is the way it depends on the file system. There is no easy way to change the storage of files. And avatars are also files. Of course, one could just use remotely hosted avatars, but it's not the ideal solution.

By providing an abstract avatar interface the avatars could be very extensible, allowing integration with third-party services such as gravatar -- something I'd love to see, by the way.

Backward compatibility would probably have to be broken, however.

EDIT: I see this has also been touched in the ticket you linked to.

[Kellanved]

Adding a new avatar type and abstracting from the storage of files are two different issues. Storage abstraction is something we have to consider, but it wouldn't be limited to avatars. On the other hand, introducing other avatar types might be easier to do by providing the appropriate hooks.

[igorw]

True.

[MichaelC]

I would support this idea.

[Highway of Life]

Igor you made an interesting point, and I think changing the way files are delivered would open up the code so you could create, for example, interfaces to third party objects. Such as uploading attachments to Amazon S3. But is that a different RFC?

[igorw]

Yep. It would rather go into this topic because it's a different matter, as Henry stated.

[Kellanved]

Actually, it would be a different RFC. We have:

-Storing files outside the root -> should be a feature of the storage API for uploads
-storage API - RFC forthcoming, although it'll be a lot like cache
-new avatar types/delivery options - should be handled by proposing hooks to alter/add avatar options; the storage API might be able to provide direct links where safe

[Dog Cow]

Such as uploading attachments to Amazon S3. But is that a different RFC?

Or storing the forum posts on S3.

[Kellanved]

Posts, being stored in the database are utterly outside of this RFC. You can place your database in the cloud just fine - even with 3.0.