feldon23 Posted February 12, 2003 Posted February 12, 2003 Ok, I've been ranting in various places on this board with mostly negative reactions. I realize that osCommerce is free. I also feel that the developers and users' lives would ALL be easier if some things happened: - SIMPLIFY!! For instance, in: /catalog/install/images there are 8 "graphic" buttons which are virtually identical to the standard HTML submit type buttons. They are just buttons with text. For localization purposes, these should be just ordinary Submit buttons, no? /catalog/admin/includes/languages/../images there are 41 "graphic" buttons which are virtually identical to the standard HTML submit type buttons. They are just buttons with text. This seems like a localization nightmare to me. Shouldn't these be ordinary submit buttons? osCommerce comes with an entire set of example company logos, company products, images, etc. etc. I realize this is for people setting up osCommerce for the first time to have example manufacturers and products. But why is this included in each build? Shouldn't these: 28 product graphics in 6 company folders in /catalog/images/ 9 company logos in /catalog/images/ an example download file in /catalog/download be in a separate "Getting Started" pack? I cannot stress enough that all the HTML and Text should be pulled from the PHP files and put in external localization and template files. I know templates are planned for 2.2-MS1. I hope these will be as robust as the ones in vBulletin and that the number of PHP files will come down from the current astronomic number of 274 (excluding localization for German and Spanish which should each be 1-3 language files instead of the current 179 files per language) down to something more like 100. Optimization of the code by doing less MySQL queries (as mentioned by Wayne Luke, a developer of vBulletin), would offset any slowness that the decrease in the number of PHP files might cause.
feldon23 Posted February 12, 2003 Author Posted February 12, 2003 I've had a heck of a time with the search engine here. If we are not using the CVS update system, we don't need to upload the 327 Entries, Repository, and Root files contained in 109 folders do we?
feldon23 Posted February 12, 2003 Author Posted February 12, 2003 I am hopeful that sometime in the near future, we can upload a replacement of all the PHP files from a newer daily build onto our existing daily build with only about 1 hour of re-hacking of affected PHP files. Is this a realistic expectation?
feldon23 Posted February 12, 2003 Author Posted February 12, 2003 Unfortunately, there's no "Edit Post" button here. Here's Wayne Luke's thread on the development work he is doing on a separate build of osCommerce. I wish instead of forking osCommerce, his contributions and ideas could get consideration for osCommerce itself. http://www.oscommerce.com/forums/viewtopic.php...er=asc&start=10
mattice Posted February 12, 2003 Posted February 12, 2003 I've had a heck of a time with the search engine here. If we are not using the CVS update system, we don't need to upload the 327 Entries, Repository, and Root files contained in 109 folders do we? Stop counting, start coding. "Politics is the art of preventing people from taking part in affairs which properly concern them"
feldon23 Posted February 12, 2003 Author Posted February 12, 2003 Well, I can sit down and get osCommerce the way I want it (with all language in external files and with one PHP file per page + header + footer) but then I am screwed tomorrow when the next daily build comes out. The reason nobody can optimize osCommerce down to a manageable size + number of files is because it has to happen at the developer level. The developers have to stop and pull all text and HTML out of the PHP files and put it into localization files and templates and then that would be a milestone that I think everyone would upgrade to. As I've said, staying up-to-date on osCommerce is looking like a full-time job to me.
feldon23 Posted February 12, 2003 Author Posted February 12, 2003 Also, that was a specific question. If we are not using the CVS update system, do we need to upload the CVS files to the server? http://guide.oscdox.com/ does not even mention the CVS files. As you can imagine even on my T1 connection, it takes a long time to create 109 directories and upload 327 files for each daily snapshot if these files are only for development purposes. Anyway, I can look at the modification dates in each daily build if I need to know what's been updated!
Ajeh Posted February 12, 2003 Posted February 12, 2003 You could just unzip the new files and make your updates from those ... :shock:
mattice Posted February 12, 2003 Posted February 12, 2003 Well, I can sit down and get osCommerce the way I want it (with all language in external files and with one PHP file per page + header + footer) but then I am screwed tomorrow when the next daily build comes out. Why? The reason nobody can optimize osCommerce down to a manageable size + number of files is because it has to happen at the developer level. Manageble size is subjective. I personally prefer osC as it is instead of what you describe. The developers have to stop and pull all text and HTML out of the PHP files and put it into localization files and templates and then that would be a milestone that I think everyone would upgrade to. But then you would end up with ..ehm.. you counted them... files! Anyway, halve of what you say has been done, other halve is on the workboard... As I've said, staying up-to-date on osCommerce is looking like a full-time job to me. Looks like it perhaps. But is not. You don't HAVE TO stay up to date. Also, that was a specific question. If we are not using the CVS update system, do we need to upload the CVS files to the server? http://guide.oscdox.com/ does not even mention the CVS files. oscdox == UNofficial guide As you can imagine even on my T1 connection, it takes a long time to create 109 directories and upload 327 files for each daily snapshot if these files are only for development purposes. CVS does this FAST. Check your T1 supplier, you are getting ripped off. Anyway, I can look at the modification dates in each daily build if I need to know what's been updated! I repeat: CVS does this FAST. "Politics is the art of preventing people from taking part in affairs which properly concern them"
feldon23 Posted February 12, 2003 Author Posted February 12, 2003 But then you would end up with ..ehm.. you counted them... files! Not for templates. Templates would be in the MySQL database. If you look at vBulletin, hundreds of bugs can be fixed in the PHP files without the templates being affected. Uploading the latest version of all the PHP files should fix all the bugs without affecting the layout of the page whatsoever! Looks like it perhaps. But is not. You don't HAVE TO stay up to date. I question the sanity of a developer who thinks it is perfectly normal for every person on earth to have a different build of the software, each with various bugs and security vulnerabilities. This is not a toy, it is a SHOPPING CART/MERCHANT program!!!!
mattice Posted February 12, 2003 Posted February 12, 2003 This is not a toy, it is a SHOPPING CART/MERCHANT program!!!! No. It's whatever you want it to be. Open Source / GPL. You are in no way limited "Politics is the art of preventing people from taking part in affairs which properly concern them"
Harald Ponce de Leon Posted February 12, 2003 Posted February 12, 2003 Don't forget, today is lets-moan-about-CVS-day. I forgot to update the scripts generating the cvs daily snapshots to automatically remove the CVS directories in the directory tree. Atleast no one complained two days ago on lets-moan-about-no-templates-day that CVS directories did exist in the daily CVS snapshot. (because if they need to update to todays snapshot, all they need to do is "cvs update") I think I am getting lost - 7 days is too many to keep every single individual happy. Oh wait, I guess this is why the CVS development guys added this as a feature of CVS.. let me see.. ah yes! The "export" command instead of "checkout". Ahh - thanks CVS guys! , osCommerce
feldon23 Posted February 12, 2003 Author Posted February 12, 2003 Ah. We reach the crux of the matter. You feel that vBulletin is not as good as osCommerce because of how they do business. The problem with this theory is that while vBulletin is not open source, it is editable source. You can change each and every element of it. BUT, you have a rock solid foundation to start from. I am not sure why osCommerce is trying to hide behind the banner of how wonderful open source is to explain away the lack of point releases and localization/HTML/template abstraction from the PHP files.
feldon23 Posted February 12, 2003 Author Posted February 12, 2003 You'll notice I posted not 1, not 2, but 3 times about the CVS directories being included in the distribution. The responses were "that's not a bug, that's a feature" and "your ISP sucks if you can't upload those files rapidly". Interesting place you've got here.
feldon23 Posted February 12, 2003 Author Posted February 12, 2003 Don't forget, today is lets-moan-about-CVS-day. I am not blaming CVS. I am blaming the methodology of having so many one-purpose PHP files and having localization and HTML in the PHP files. Is there somewhere that I can read about how localization and templates will be handled in osC 2.2-MS1? I'd rather be excited about the future than griping about the present and/or having combative discussions with members of the development team and osC defenders.
mattice Posted February 12, 2003 Posted February 12, 2003 You feel that vBulletin is not as good as osCommerce because of how they do business. The problem with this theory is that while vBulletin is not open source, it is editable source. You can change each and every element of it. No, I don't feel that. Assumptions. Again, you don't HAVE to use osCommerce. Go for phpshop, get Interchange, mod your beloved vBulletin... the possibilities are endless. "Politics is the art of preventing people from taking part in affairs which properly concern them"
New 
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.