| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Nikkol
Forum Moderator
USA
6907 Posts |
 Posted - 18 February 2003 : 07:55:15
|
I was thinking (oh no!) ... since so many people like to customize the member fields (even adding their own), why not make a certain number of text fields available for additional fields? Or a solution similar to the MOD for 3.3 by Huw. Also, how hard would it be to allow admins to choose which fields were manditory or not?
It might help with performance also if the FORUM_MEMBER table were stripped down to just id, name, number of posts, status, that sort of thing and we introduced a FORUM_MEMBER_DETAILS table.
Any thoughts? Did I make sense, or am I still half asleep?  |
Nikkol ~ Help Us Help You | ReadMe | 3.4.03 fixes | security fixes ~ |
|
|
Shaggy
Support Moderator
Ireland
6780 Posts |
Posted - 18 February 2003 : 08:19:00
|
I was thinking exact same thing the other day, Nikkol. Instead of all the fields we have at the moment, just have a few basic/essential ones (name, e-mail, posts, etc.) and allow the rest to be configured when running setup with the option of whether they're mandatory or not. On the downside, though, it would make first time installation a bit more difficult for a lot of people.
|
 Search is your friend
“I was having a mildly paranoid day, mostly due to the
fact that the mad priest lady from over the river had
taken to nailing weasels to my front door again.” |
 |
|
|
Nikkol
Forum Moderator
USA
6907 Posts |
Posted - 18 February 2003 : 08:38:44
|
| No, they could be configured after installation on the Member Details page in Admin Options. It would appear similar to how it does now. |
Nikkol ~ Help Us Help You | ReadMe | 3.4.03 fixes | security fixes ~ |
|
|
|
Shaggy
Support Moderator
Ireland
6780 Posts |
Posted - 18 February 2003 : 09:26:06
|
Yeah, that'd make more sense, wouldn't unnecessarily complicate the initial installation. The only reason I was suggesting it be done that way was that I was proposing that all member fields bar the essentials would have to be created at setup to avoid having redundant fields in the FORUM_MEMBERS table as a result of somebody having no need for them.
|
Search is your friend
“I was having a mildly paranoid day, mostly due to the
fact that the mad priest lady from over the river had
taken to nailing weasels to my front door again.” |
|
|
|
oztrades
Starting Member
Australia
5 Posts |
Posted - 22 September 2003 : 03:29:59
|
I have searched high and low through the forums. Has there been any further progress on this idea or has it been considered too enormous a project? I'm having problems inserting my old DB into the snitz and making free areas and paying member areas. I did comtemplate using a text file like in a "mod" to insert the new fields but the problem of setting variables is one problem (i'm a newbie to this) and the other i see would be linking the fields to the appropriate new pages for registration and/or update.
Regards
Dave
quote:
Originally posted by Nikkol
I was thinking (oh no!) ... since so many people like to customize the member fields (even adding their own), why not make a certain number of text fields available for additional fields? Or a solution similar to the MOD for 3.3 by Huw. Also, how hard would it be to allow admins to choose which fields were manditory or not?
It might help with performance also if the FORUM_MEMBER table were stripped down to just id, name, number of posts, status, that sort of thing and we introduced a FORUM_MEMBER_DETAILS table.
Any thoughts? Did I make sense, or am I still half asleep?
|
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
Topic Locked
