Why were TABLE_ defined constants removed?

[swguy]

What's the reasoning behind this decision?  Because it sure did create a lot of work for people who are trying to keep their mods current. 

[burt]

To allow the ethos of "no core code changes".  

Already covered in depth, multiple times, over the years  - there's some threads you can read more buried in the forum.

Note also that FILENAME_* are gone too...

[BrockleyJohn]

It's part of an overall strategy to make addons easier to install for shopowners, preferably without changing any code at all.

It's better that addon publishers do the work instead of all the shopowners installing the addon each doing some (and having problems)

 

[swguy]

11 minutes ago, burt said:

Already covered in depth, multiple times, over the years  

Can you point me to a specific post?  I'm genuinely curious. 

I'm talking about defines for core tables in osCommerce like TABLE_CONFIGURATION.  Also, doesn't this kill the use of prefixes? 

[burt]

Just now, swguy said:

Can you point me to a specific post?  I'm genuinely curious. 

I'm talking about defines for core tables in osCommerce like TABLE_CONFIGURATION.  Also, doesn't this kill the use of prefixes? 

You'd need to search for them, they date back to 2014 or earlier.

Who cares about pre-fixes?  Databases are cheap.

[swguy]

4 minutes ago, burt said:

Who cares about pre-fixes?  Databases are cheap.

I definitely wouldn't support prefixes if I was starting a project today, but what if someone is upgrading an osCommerce 2.3 installation with prefixes?  Do they have to rename all their tables?  

[burt]

Just now, swguy said:

I definitely wouldn't support prefixes if I was starting a project today, but what if someone is upgrading an osCommerce 2.3 installation with prefixes?  Do they have to rename all their tables?  

Yes.  That'd take...a minute or two ?  In this instance...who runs osCommerce with prefixes?  1 in 1000 shopowners? 

I get what you're saying, but to do positive things...sometimes means a perceived negative thing has to be lived with.

I did actually have a branch with full pre-fixing capability - but there was very little interest in it, so it got deleted.   

[Stephan Gebbers]

Quote

Yes.  That'd take...a minute or two ?

in an ideal world, yes.
in reality, just require the old files (filenames.php / database
_tables.php) into application_top.php,where they previously were, to keep older addons using defines running.

 

 

[burt]

45 minutes ago, Stephan Gebbers said:

in reality, just require the old files (filenames.php / database
_tables.php) into application_top.php,where they previously were, to keep older addons using defines running.

Avoid core code changes...you could instead use a Hook...  Try it in Phoenix with one of the pre-placed sitewide hooks  

[swguy]

Burt, you have done a Yeoman's job of taking care of osCommerce.  Way better than I could have done. 

But this decision seems unwise.  You have completely broken all existing mods, even ones that didn't modify includes/database_tables.php. 

And the file still exists in the admin folder!  If you really wanted to get rid of the file, why didn't you just put these defines in the configuration table so existing mods would continue to work? 

Shouldn't there have been a pinned thread somewhere saying, "Hey, modders, update your stuff!" so I wouldn't have to learn about this from a bug report?   

[burt]

Cheers.

1. wasn't my decision
2. decision was made in 2014 or maybe earlier - 5 *years* ago at least - I know I was on my holidays when the first argument about it got out of hand
3. announcement was made years ago in forum
4. work has been ongoing ever since to get osc updated, work has not yet started in admin area hardly - waiting on more shopowners, developers, conultants and businesses to actively support forward movement.

<blunt>addon compatibility, that's up to addon makers</blunt>

Maybe your focus is elsewhere - which is 110% cool - hence why you haven't come across this in the past 5 years ?

[swguy]

I apologize, I thought you were the one championing it.  Oh well, I guess I had better get on board if this is the new direction.  

I'd love to be more involved in osCommerce, but the demand from paying clients just isn't there.  Who knows, maybe Phoenix will breathe new life into the project. 

 

[burt]

2 minutes ago, swguy said:

maybe Phoenix will breathe new life into the project

Things do generally seem more positive since the release of Phoenix.  It's solved some of the points that some people liked to regularly quibble about;

• lack of "official" acceptance
• lack of versioning
• ease of updating

Joined the Phoenix Club? 

[swguy]

Is there guidance on updating from 2.3? 

[Stephan Gebbers]

7 hours ago, burt said:

Avoid core code changes...you could instead use a Hook...  Try it in Phoenix with one of the pre-placed sitewide hooks  

ok, you are right, sitewide hooks is a new option to add things like that.