Since a lot of upcoming hacks are going to (or should) include various wordlets, I propose we make it standard that these hacks not add their wordlets to the standard wordlet file, but to an additional one, just for hacks, instead. This would make upgrading to newer versions significantly easier, as you wouldn't have to sort through your wordlet files looking for the ones Infopop added. Obviously there's no built in method for editing these wordlets via the control panel, but that could be easily remedied.

Thoughts?

I think qasic took the initiative and made a separate wordlet specifically for the avatar hack...pretty snazzy if you ask me.

I see your point though, on smaller hacks that only have one or two words used on the UBB it'd be useful to have a 'catch-all' page for the odds and ends...

Hint:

Make a scriptlet to be distributed with all hacks everywhere that use your new hack_wordlet.

Run from browser, it opens the old hack_wordlets and appends the new hack's wordlets to it.

Snazzy.

Err, I didn't say that, did I

[ March 19, 2001: Message edited by: navaho ]

Also, it would be rather spiffy if there were a seperate section in the control panel for "Hacks Wordlets." Once that particular add-on was finished, there could be a link to it placed at the top of instructions for other hacks. This would make for some very convenient hacking, I do believe.

Two thumbs up and a big "aaaaaay!" to Leshrac for proposing this.

The biggest problem would be lazy coders, and I'm convinced this is something we at UBBDev need to strickly enforce if people want their hacks to be part of our database:

The biggest worry is that people name their hash keys stupidly general things, like:

$wordlets_hack{'reply'}

if we go for this standard, something like that shouldn't be allowed anywhere NEAR the database IMO. We have to be consistent, and use the name of the hack there somewhere to avoid repetition.
eg

$wordlets_hack{'myhack_reply'}


navaho: Thanks, that's a great idea to write into the vinkulum.

I think Borg's idea of hackname_key is a great suggestion if this idea goes through. Other code hackers opinions on this?

q

hmmm... sounds very similar to this thread:
https://www.ubbdev.com/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=8&t=001193

mebbe I didn't say my words right or something... but I posted it 4 days ago...

i like this idea

Sorry about that, Allen, I didn't see your thread on this.

Borg's idea is a good one, I was thinking the same thing myself. navaho has a good idea as well, hackers could just put all the wordlet keys and values into a separate file, and then a universal script would insert them into the hacks wordlet file, and make sure none of the keys were being duplicated.

Well ok then.. all a body wants is a lil recognition...

Not to disparage anybody, but anything that can be setup and done automagically as in this script that would insert the keys and values would prevent a lot of goof-ups... I am for that too.

Oh yeah, forgot my word to use too...

it would be "groovy"

This sounds like an excellent idea.

It would really make things alot easier, which I'm always for.

so who will make the script to auto insert the wordlets? any volunteers?

Well, I could write something up, shouldn't take long.

i added this to my mod i was making:


Now to summarize... Leshrac, could you make the script check to see if the wordlet file is already on the server, and if not, create it. Then it would add the wordlets. Then it would display to the user instructions on where to add require code, and some other menu code in order to finish installing wordlet file if not already installed.

Leshrac: great idea you had.

[ March 21, 2001: Message edited by: DPK ]

[ March 21, 2001: Message edited by: DPK ]

Like this?


This would also create the keys+default values if they didn't exist in the hash.
I'm using the same thing for for something else I'm writing (unrelated to wordlets).

[ March 21, 2001: Message edited by: Borg ]

Thought we used the word 'mod' as opposed to 'hack'. ??

true.. we might at least consider "mod" as opposed to "hack"...

quick work elliott...

One problem, you won't be able to create the hack wordlet file from scratch, since the variables directory isn't set as writable. I tried this with the Memberlist hack before, and ended up having to distribute a basic setup file along with the hack in order to be able to write to it. The other alternative is creating the wordlet file in another directory, but that's not very desirable.

Okay let's go a few steps further. We are global, so is our audience, soooooooo wouldnt' you need to make wordlets in several languages? I noticed the language box in one of the cp sections, so it stands to reason, choose this langauge, get these wordlets..

Since we are defining terms here, this type of dedication in programming would separate "hackers" from "software engineers"

[ March 21, 2001: Message edited by: DCF ]

@ragorn: (Who are you, BTW?) I gave up after noone else would, and everyone thought I was talking about "moderators".

Leshrac: Just stick a
chmod (0777, "$vars_config{VariablesPath}/");
before the write and an appropriate CHMOD after.

That is both dangerous and impractical.

unless(-e $filepath) { die "You lack vars_wordlets_hacks.cgi. Please view the README included with this hack for instructions on uploading it and setting permissions on it."; }

Well, using UBBish code at least.

You think we should make vars_wordlets_hacks.cgi a compulsory download (maybe included in other distributions) then? Ok, I'm all for it..

That would be the easiest, most likely, and leave less roon for error.

Assuming the user is not clueless enough to upload the stock version.

That's assuming quite a bit,

For those, I would hope they choose an easier install method... *cough*vinkulum*cough*

I see the support requests coming in now..

Seems a lil square one planning might be in order. First narrow your sights, decide whom your target audience is. In programming class we were taught to write like the least versed about computers and software or in this case the UBB was going to use it.

(Side note: I think Hacks is negative in connotation as Allen has echoed several times.)


Is this a further progression in what was once called the vinkilum? If so, then you're establishing a sub format then. The primary being the coding needed to create said works, and the sub being the format in which it's used.

In my long winded way, I'm trying to stress that with so many hacks/mods being created, will those outside this conversation be expected to follow or will they be required (if they don't comply their mod isn't posted here?)

Clearly there are a lot of top flight programmers here, and those like myself that get lucky once in a while. I am not saying anything against this, but how it is implemeneted could be crucial to the growth of the board.

.

(Slides soap box back under the counter)

Would be easy enough to make it a requirement to make it into the "finished" forum, and the database... would remain beta until then. Those in the finished forum that contain wordlets could be easily updated for this, since we are in the beginning stages.

That would work, and give young programmers something to strive for and inturn sharpen their skills and learn more.

A win win situation.

[ March 22, 2001: Message edited by: DCF ]

Bah, ferget that outdated unsupported idea.. Modules are the Future...

I thought templates are the future? Did I miss the template era already?

We don't want EVERYTHING to be un-editable binary CC, and what about the stuff that integrates into the UBB, rather than pluggin in beside it?

*beats Allen with a foam bat for mentioning the "T word"*

Templates are the future for layout and design, not functionality.