| Author |
 Topic  |
|
RichardKinser
Snitz Forums Admin
USA
16655 Posts |
 Posted - 15 March 2002 : 06:08:23
|
Nope, the upload MOD will not be included. (at least not in v3.4) Not everyone has access to the Scripting.FileSystemObject.
We aren't going to add something that only certain people can use. |
 |
|
|
HuwR
Forum Admin
United Kingdom
20584 Posts |
Posted - 15 March 2002 : 06:08:59
|
quote:
How about including the Upload mod? since the one doesn't work in 3.3 it would be great if it could be a part of 3.4. Maybe it could be turned on/off so people could choose to enable upload if the wanted.
Michael
-------------
Who is General Failure and why is he reading my harddrive ?
No.
The mod wors perfectly with 3.3, it just needs very careful installation. It will be rereleased for 3.4 (maybe)
|
|
|
|
Roland
Advanced Member
Netherlands
9335 Posts |
Posted - 15 March 2002 : 10:16:37
|
quote:
quote:
Nathan, your example is valid only when you talk about graphic siggies. When it's a text siggy it won't matter.
What about all thost posts with siggies linking to the broken mod resourse, they are only text, but still they are broken 
Nathan Bales - Romans 15:13
----------------------------------
Point taken, but they don't appear wrong while image siggies immediately mess things up.
Did anyone see my "idea" regarding siggies and locked/deleted users? I'd like to know if that idea is any good
http://www.frutzle.com
Snitz Exchange | Do's and Dont's |
|
|
|
fatum
Junior Member
Belgium
281 Posts |
|
|
mcp_dk
Starting Member
Denmark
22 Posts |
Posted - 16 March 2002 : 03:51:33
|
quote:
No.
The mod wors perfectly with 3.3, it just needs very careful installation. It will be rereleased for 3.4 (maybe)
Hmm i never got it to work in 3.3! I remember HuwR tried to help me but still no luck. I really hope you will make this mod for 3.4 then:-)
I can understand you don't want to include it in the new release since not all can use it (didn't think of that)
Michael
-------------
Who is General Failure and why is he reading my harddrive ? |
|
|
|
Pedroz
Starting Member
Poland
16 Posts |
Posted - 17 March 2002 : 04:59:15
|
| when will be the version 3.4 released? |
|
|
|
Nathan
Help Moderator
USA
7664 Posts |
|
|
RichardKinser
Snitz Forums Admin
USA
16655 Posts |
Posted - 17 March 2002 : 16:01:43
|
beta 9 was released today. If there are no problems found with it, we should have a final release pretty soon.
Major work left to do:
inc_functions.asp is going to be broken into smaller more relevant files and only the parts that are needed will be included in each file. |
|
|
|
Jeepaholic
Average Member
USA
697 Posts |
Posted - 17 March 2002 : 19:34:05
|
Wow, that's awesome. You guys are really taking some great steps in improving this release. Kudo's...
Al Bsharah
Jeepaholics Anonymous |
|
|
|
bikedude
Starting Member
38 Posts |
Posted - 18 March 2002 : 01:31:11
|
Any chance you could pull the SQL code out into an inlcude file(s)?
|
|
|
|
Nathan
Help Moderator
USA
7664 Posts |
Posted - 18 March 2002 : 01:36:38
|
Why include the SQL strings? It would just make more lines for the CPU to dig through each time it ran the page.
Nathan Bales - Romans 15:13
----------------------------------
Snitz Exchange | Do's and Dont's |
|
|
|
Gremlin
General Help Moderator
New Zealand
7528 Posts |
Posted - 18 March 2002 : 03:17:53
|
quote:
Why include the SQL strings? It would just make more lines for the CPU to dig through each time it ran the page.
Nathan Bales - Romans 15:13
----------------------------------
Snitz Exchange | Do's and Dont's
I'm guessing so that they can be changed to SP's or something easier. What would be ideal really is having an abstratcion layer that all calls went via, then you could easily implement SP's or other changes without too much effort.
www.daoc-halo.com |
|
|
|
HuwR
Forum Admin
United Kingdom
20584 Posts |
Posted - 18 March 2002 : 04:19:00
|
I have used this approach in the past, all the SQL strings were defined in an include like this
ThisSQLcommand = "SELECT * FROM TABLE WHERE ID=%1" (not normaly using select *) the queries where then used by doig
Replace(ThisSQLcommand,"%1",ThisID)
or something along those lines anyway.
|
|
|
|
bikedude
Starting Member
38 Posts |
Posted - 18 March 2002 : 12:18:58
|
Converting the SQL to includes does several things. First, it's easier to convert to stored procedures or different unofficially supported databases.
Second, it makes it easier to maintain. If you add a field to the DB for a mod, you know exactly the place to look to update the code.
Third, it encourages code re-use. Mod builders can easily re-use existing SQL code. This also makes maintenance easier when the SQL is updated; you may not have to update my mod, because it uses the same core SQL code.
Finally, Includes are very quick. There's no perceptible impact on performance by converting sections of code to includes.
My montra: Think modular, not monolithic!
|
|
|
|
Kal Corp
Average Member
USA
878 Posts |
Posted - 18 March 2002 : 13:17:19
|
Dont Forget Group categories is now in 3.4 b9+
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Topic Locked
