Amiga.org
Amiga.org specific forums => Amiga.org Discussion and Site Feedback => Topic started by: alewis on January 26, 2007, 07:32:16 PM
-
Maybe I'm having a "doh!" moment, but is there anyway to view sent PMs (ie, an outbox)? I can only view my inbox. Right now I need to see what replies I have sent to people trying to keep track of what is under offer, etc.
-
Unfortunately, no. What you're asking for isn't possible under the current PM engine.
Wayne
-
then its about time a update is done to the forum, its 2007 now not 1999...... :evil:
Edited by Argo: Profanity
________
BRUNETTE FINGERING (http://www.fucktube.com/categories/421/fingering/videos/1)
-
It would be handy to have the abillity to read what one sent, at a later date...
-
c64_d0c wrote:
then its about time a f**king update is done to the forum, its 2007 now not 1999...... :evil:
You've obviously never tried to update a XOOPs site that has a lot of content already ;-)
-
And there's also the issue of any upgrade potentially breaking viewability on real Amigas (yes, I do visit A.Org on my A3K now and again!)
- Ali
-
i guess the reality did catch up on the amiga then......
Edited by Argo: Profanity
________
New Jersey Marijuana Dispensary (http://newjersey.dispensaries.org/)
-
Ali, I don't mean to be obtuse, but is your nick missing a prefix? :P
"potentially breaking".... so upgrades which are of benefit to all must be avoided on the grounds that they might, repeat might, not be well received on a highly marginalised browser...!???
InTheSand wrote:
And there's also the issue of any upgrade potentially breaking viewability on real Amigas (yes, I do visit A.Org on my A3K now and again!)
- Ali
-
Blimey c64_d0c, do you really have to swear in every single post?
I feel a lot of anger and aggression.
-
alewis wrote:
Ali, I don't mean to be obtuse, but is your nick missing a prefix? :P
whooooosh - that's the sound of your comment going completely over my head! No understandy! :-?
so upgrades which are of benefit to all must be avoided on the grounds that they might, repeat might, not be well received on a highly marginalised browser...!???
AWeb? Highly marginalised? Surely not! :-)
It'd be a shame if an Amiga-specific web site wasn't actually viewable on a real Amiga, but I take your point... Designing in backwards compatibility that backwards can be a pain!
@Odin: :lol: Perhaps some anger management courses are required?!!!
- Ali
-
InTheSand wrote:
alewis wrote:
Ali, I don't mean to be obtuse, but is your nick missing a prefix? :P
whooooosh - that's the sound of your comment going completely over my head! No understandy! :-?
- Ali
Head - is the *key* word ;-)
-
I agree with the original poster that it is akward to not have an outbox, but well, if it isn't possible, tough luck I guess. Or use e-mail.
@InTheSand:
Nah, I think he/she just needs to grow up a bit ;-).
-
@odin: yeah i am angry the PM engine is messed!!....its not like he is the only one with the problem you know :-x
Edited by Argo: Profanity
________
Fix Ps3 (http://fixps3.info/)
-
@alewis: :laughing:
Ah! Yes!! :lol:
Can't believe I didn't see that! :crazy:
Too many :pint: last night or something, that's my excuse! D'oh!
- Ali
-
Lol!
-
@#$#$@!#! My outbox that stores all the drunken shoutings is not retrieving what I shouted last night! This is obviously someone else's responsibility!
Not to be negative, but it's easy enough to cut, paste, and file, if you think you will ever need to retrieve the information.
I *ONLY* (well, almost) use my A3000 to view this site, and I am very grateful that it works so well, ie, that it is so compliant!
-
c64_d0c wrote:
its not like he is the only one with the problem you know :-x
Evidently. Yet he doesn't feel the need to behave like a spoiled toddler about it :-P
-
alewis wrote:
"potentially breaking".... so upgrades which are of benefit to all must be avoided on the grounds that they might, repeat might, not be well received on a highly marginalised browser...!???
InTheSand wrote:
And there's also the issue of any upgrade potentially breaking viewability on real Amigas (yes, I do visit A.Org on my A3K now and again!)
- Ali
Well, it would be a bit ironic if Amiga.org wasn't viewable on real Amigas :lol:
-
@ alewis
You can copy the text before you send the PM. Then PM the same text to yourself. I think that is the only way to win.
-
Personal attacks and profanity aside, do you have ANY idea what would be involved in updating a site that has literally 5 years of data installed in it? "Updating" a site this large is NOT as simple as inserting a disc and clicking on "upgrade".
Nevermind the fact that the modern Xoops engine went out of it's way NOT to be backwards compatible with HTML 3.x capable browsers long, long ago.
I have fought with this issue many times over the years, and put simply, it's one we cannot win. If we (could even) upgrade for the benefit of the majority (most of whom don't even OWN an Amiga any longer) then we lose the necessary backwards compatibility for Aweb and other Amiga browsers.
I for one am not yet ready to make that call but I digress.
Here's the bigger problem. Xoops developers have not really cared about providing upgrade paths to their users. We're using a patched version so old that we would have to literally find, then install, then "update" the site like 14 times to get to the latest version. The chances of the data installed on our system surviving or correctly being modified that many times is slim, nil, and none.
So, you have to track your own bloody PMs' sent. Small price to pay to keep a site that works for everyone.
Wayne
-
I'm probably saying nonsense (never tried network programming..) but would a site like this be that hard to code from scratch ? I mean Xoops (or whatever it's called) is a full blown general engine, probably full of features most sites don't use anyway...
It all seems just a bunch of user accounts/forums and news items... :roll:
:lol:
:pint:
-
Wayne wrote:
Here's the bigger problem. Xoops developers have not really cared about providing upgrade paths to their users. We're using a patched version so old that we would have to literally find, then install, then "update" the site like 14 times to get to the latest version. The chances of the data installed on our system surviving or correctly being modified that many times is slim, nil, and none.
Indeed, wasn't there a time where you had this site upgraded further than it is now, but there were far too many problems with it, so you removed some of the "bonus" stuff that was patched because all the Amiga browsing members had major problems?
The site is fine the way it is, having an outbox would be handy, but there are simple solutions that have already been mentioned.
-
@Wayne. The tone of your post seems a bit 'strident' - unsure if aimed at me, the profane person, or just general frustration; I imagine the later, as your post reveals a considerable amount of frustration over Xoops.
I didn't mean to add to it! Just wondered if there /was/ an outbox and I was having a blonde moment, or there really wasn't and it it would be nice to have one.
@others who suggested cut and paste. Yep, can do that for one or two mails. Try doing it for a damm sight more, and keeping track of whom they are too, its a labour intensive manual process, and hence heavily error prone. Exactly the task that long ago (ie real) system analysts would identify as benefiting from computer automation. Rest my case.
But in this case it isn't possible.
Ok, I didn't know that, I do now. If this is a perenial question, it might be worthwhile putting in a sticky for new users... I know I been regged on the site for 4 years, and really only active for a few months, but after a decade of using web sites which *do* have outboxes, one becomes accostomed to having an out-box.
I didn't realise the the site is A-web friendly. EAB, Aminet et al are not. As a consequence, I haven't really used the Amiga for surfing for 5+ years now, its just too slow and too "broken".
K, long winded (and hopefully unnecessary) apology over. Wayne, chill a bit
-
You would have figured by now, someone would have coded a decent web portal engine and tools for porting from xoopsh|t db. :roll:
Dammy
-
@Jose,
Not "impossible", but more effort than the current Amiga market would justify. There are hundreds of little things about this site that while you may not use, or may not notice, someone would, and they would complain in it's absence.
Heck, I'd love to even rewrite the whole PM module altogether to give inbox, outbox, saved items, and everything else, but when balancing a full-time job and everything else, it's rather hard to do.
I'll see whether one of the new modules HAPPENS to be backwards compatible, but I somehow doubt it.
Wayne
-
Wayne wrote:
I'll see whether one of the new modules HAPPENS to be backwards compatible, but I somehow doubt it.
Wayne
It isn't.
-
Fair enouph... but you could make it a tinny hobby, like a few lines of code per day or something...
Ok forget it.. 8-)
-
I have in the past given serious thought to such a project, written for the Amiga. If enough people volunteered to help, I'd be game. But, I will NOT code in C, under any circumstances. I have decided upon FPC, which no one else wants to code in.
Should I win the lottery Wednesday, maybe I'll make Amiga programming and hardware design a fulltime job.
-
"But, I will NOT code in C, under any circumstances. "
Any ? Wow.. Why ? :-)
-
@Jose
I guess it's not everybody's cup of tea. He wouldn't be alone in hating it.
*mental image of gamecube pops up for no apparent reason*
-
Forwards or backwards depends on your point of view.
If you are a C programmer, C is forwards and everything else is backwards. If you are not a C programmer, C is backwards and everything else is forwards.
I gave C a fair chance 15 years ago. I just can't get over the counterintuitivity.
-
C rules:) Actually I've for the 1st time tryed to code some stuff (that general coder thing, unfinished...) that made me see some actual limitations of C. The main loop for array handling for each data type had blocks of code that followed the same control statements. If I was to code it for each type separately it would have a bunch of repeated code. So I abstracted it using function pointers:) But I think in the end it was to be much less efective because of the constant function calls within the loop, wich supposedly take memo of registers, stack etc, between function calls. C++ would have handled this internaly with a simple goto, right ? I tried to avoid the overhead using only a single pointer as argument, wich points to the set of arguments that all the "objects" might need. It still won't be as fast but probably almost the same (provided compilers optimize multiple pointer acess wich is only logical that they do, right ?)...
...
I need some sleep... :-)
-
Actually I've for the 1st time tryed to code some stuff (that general coder thing, unfinished...) that made me see some actual limitations of C. The main loop for array handling for each data type had blocks of code that followed the same control statements. If I was to code it for each type separately it would have a bunch of repeated code.
Ever heard of macros? ;-)
-
All I can say is that C is a dream compared to RPG. RPG is a nightmare compared to COBOL :-)
-
Piru wrote:
Actually I've for the 1st time tryed to code some stuff (that general coder thing, unfinished...) that made me see some actual limitations of C. The main loop for array handling for each data type had blocks of code that followed the same control statements. If I was to code it for each type separately it would have a bunch of repeated code.
Ever heard of macros? ;-)
Or just use C++ where this could be quite readily handled with a template ;-)
-
I guess macros would do just fine, as templates:)
But both also repeat the code internaly (from my limited knowledge of C++ templates also do that), wich leads to unecessarily bigger code. I think a C++ class would solve it better, without duplicating code and allowing for faster code I think (?) (compared to function pointers). BTW, is there a way to use function pointers without the usual overhead of function calls ? Inline functions come to mind, but those also duplicate the code...
-
@Jose
That depends. The C preprocessor knows absolutely nothing about C as a language and will happily create the most illegal code possible if you aren't careful.
Templates in C++, on the other hand, are part of the language specification and have strict rules.
As for a class versus a template class, it really depends on your particular needs.
If you need run time polymorphic behaviuour and speed is not absolutely critical, abstract classes are the way to go.
Templates, on the other hand, are designed to allow you to create "generic" code. Every version of a template you make results in something like a new handwritten class based on your template parameters being created by the compiler. Consequently code can bloat a lot if you are not careful. Thankfully, its easy to specialise templates to avoid that. For example, suppose you made some container template "MyContainer", you could save a lot by making a specialisation for pointers by making the MyContaier as a specialisation for all MyContainer. In effect, what you end up with is a single class that handles void* and a bunch of templates that just wrap it with type-safe behaviour, adding no additional code to the executable.
-
@So I guess using a class the resulting code will be like adding a switch inside the loop for each type(not that bad admiting that the compiler optimizes it to an array of goto's indexed by the variable) ? Maybe I'll just use that next time:-)