But without laughter: Yes: we need progress, but not at all costs.
The point is: will we make a module for the elite (with PHP 7.8.9) or make we a module for everyone?
So, I restate my question: will the module function better or do more with filter_var as opposed with intval? (Maybe easier to program, but that is not the point.)
Imho, this is the reason I prefer the filter system as opposed to using intval.
Firstly the two functions do not do the same job, all intval does is force a variable into a certain type and for all intensive proposes this will work fine, however there is major difference between the two methods. Using filter_input ensures that the information comes from HTTP Method and forces it false, if not true. The input data will be filtered according to type and filter type. Then I can add further flags to determine what we will allow through the filter.
Using this method will build consistency when dealing with filters, there is plenty of documentation on this subject already on the internet for other developers to use as a reference and to help their understand of how these functions work..
The point is this do we have some sort of standards when dealing with this? Or do we write a completely new set of functions or do we use what is in PHP already? But you are quite right; I should have taken into account that not all users can use these functions.
The biggest issue with XOOPS over the last few years is this subject. There is not standard method of Input filtering within the core and everyone just uses their own methods and as we have seen, this always does not work. All I am attempting to do is put some standardisation within the whole framework and since this already is in PHP I didn’t see the need to reinvent the wheel.
As for making an independent version for both platforms, that would be wonderful if we lived in a world where I had all the time needed. In reality, I am not going (personally) spend my time writing for an obsolete package that is currently no longer supported by the developers. If they are not going to support it why should I? It doesn’t make sense to me.
The other thing is this, we at XOOPS always urge our users to use the latest version and update when possible. This way they can be assured that they will get newer features and a safer XOOPS. We can joke about introducing more bugs as much as we fix, but that’s the nature of the beast when we program, and if we all took the stance that its better to stay with one version because it seems to do the job, then we programmers wouldn’t be needed really lol
Yes, they still do.
But from that same thread: Seems there is a problem in blocksadmin and they have difficulties to keep up with XOOPS 2.3:
It as already has been made clear from Smart factory that they do not intend on keep compatibility with XOOPS 2.3 and the move of all their modules is a big indication that that they are moving further away from Xoops. The point is that these two systems are going to grow further and further apart to the point they will not be the same system and we would be deluding ourselves if we expect them to keep up compatibility. Then again, they could always write a version both for XOOPS and IMCMS.
I'm unsure of SmartFAQ will work correctly on XOOPS 2.3.x - as several areas of compatibility problems rose from this release.
Are we making XOOPS incompatible with XOOPS?
Compatibility in reality has to end somewhere and we have to be kidding ourselves if we expect a product to continually support outdated code or other dependant programs. We wouldn’t expect every new program to run on Windows 95 or Windows NT would we? Same has to be said with Xoops.
Why not SmartFAQ?
Because this module is not a official XOOPS Module. The Module you speak of belongs to the Smart Factory and it is up to them to develop the module further.
I know myself that this module doesn't do half of what I would like it to do, but the main point is getting them ported over and working on 2.3. Then we shall start adding the new features and getting it to a decent standard.
Is this not a bit reinventing the wheel? I think starting with the best module in the FAQ genre, would give more a headstart of it. After all, they are GPL, aren't they?
Catzwolf, I made my points, but it is your call!
To be quite blunt and honest, that module is based on a module I did 5 years ago and much of the code base hasn’t changed in many respects, and to change that module over to what I would consider better cleaner code, would be a developers nightmare.
I am not saying that the module is bad, I am saying it will probably be quicker starting the way I did and then to add the features that would be required to get this module up to scratch.
I think what a lot of people don’t seem to realise is this. This drive is about getting a lot of older modules working again on XOOPS 2.3. My hope with ‘Move to Blue’ drive is to highlight the fact that we are trying to push module development back into our community. We might even bring back old developers and more importantly we might gain new developers. Right now the focus is not about building the élite module for everyone. If that was the case, I would have spent another week developing XoopsFAQ into a module that would have been on par with SmartFAQ, but that wasn’t my objective though.
The fact is this; we have lost a lot of module developers from our community because we didn’t put enough effort into giving them the help and tools required. Again I aim to change that.
I hear what you’re saying, though I initially don’t agree with everything you’re saying, I do however respect ‘yours’ and ‘everyone’ else’s opinion on this matter and I have taken this onboard for the future.
Here, no problems with eg Winzip 8. What program do you use?
Maybe your archive is not complete and you may try to do the download again.
You may also try 7zip.
I used winzip 12 here, but I used legacy mode to archive these up and it should be compatible with any version (apparently).