+1 I didn't see any mention of REST in the source code though so not holding out much hope there. It is possible to bootstrap the whole system, but there are issues in that cookies are only set in whichever folder your forum is installed rather than site-wide so this has limited usefulness and you can't override the cookie path without changing a core file. In prior versions you could set cookie paths, but not v4 for some reason
[quote name='xunyx' timestamp='1346146844']It would greatly help to know what "will be released soon" means. If developers are trying to plan their next moves, or even a switch, it is absolutely necesary to have at least an estimation of when the next version will be out. Al least a rough timeframe...
Good developers don't give time estimates on products this complicated - this is also why they don't tell us what will be in a future version until they're sure it will actually be in that version (i.e. a month or so before).
It's just impossible to say how long something will take on a product of this scale - even if they've got all the code complete the beta testers might find more (or less!) bugs than expected so testing might go on longer.
In the history of programming web applications, people always get pissy when they're given even an estimated release date and the product isn't released by that date. I've seen a while back when someone gave an estimate of "a few months" and someone literally held them to that meaning "60 days". It's just not worth the hassle.
My guess however would be that it will be released in the next week or two - there's little point enticing new customers with a discount and saying the release is approaching unless the release is reasonably close.
On the skins/mods side of things, all I've read about 3.4 leads me to believe there won't be that much changing in terms of skinning, and certainly not a huge code rewrite so I'd be tempted to say that neither of those would be affected greatly. Version 4.0 however... ;)
It could just be a simple case of maths, for example the total number of IPB license holders there are minus how many people are missing a feature, then do a percentage based on that. Not saying that's how IPB calculate such things, but it's the way I'd do it and I imagine the vocal minority really is a minority based on that calculation.
Either every license holder who doesn't complain about a feature doesn't miss it or are simply not bothered enough to post about it here.
If people are happy with things, they're less likely to post that they're happy with things, but if they have an issue with something they're more likely to be vocal - it's the way of the world.
Not saying anything in this thread is right or wrong, or that it's right or wrong to complain about things or that I'm happy or upset feature X has been removed - just replying to the post above
Thinking about this some more, I've come up with would probably be an unpopular suggestion - simply change it back to the way it was before, but still disable the skin editor unless a valid license is entered (assuming that's all a lack of license prevents from working).
Why? Well anyone malicious who's going to ignore the notice and has a little CSS knowledge can get rid of the error message, and anyone trying to circumvent things any more than that would probably just get a nulled copy of the script anyway.
I think that from my point of view at least, it's now similar to those annoying copyright ads at the beginning of DVDs (the ads, not the text notices). If you see the DVD copyright ads (the often awful anti-piracy ads that are all too "in your face" a lot of the time) then you've got a legitimate copy anyway and 99% of the time and it's not going to stop piracy - pirates don't just think "oh no, I'm doing a bad thing" and stop copying the DVD. In fact I would guess DVD pirates would just strip those copyright ads out, but the main point is they'd have done something illegal anyway - it's a no-brainer that it's illegal.
Perhaps just a small message that shows on the first page of the ACP might be the way to go. That way, the reminder is there and it's far less annoying (I get the feeling this is how it was beforehand but can't actually remember).
What you don't want to do is make honest developers do the nasty CSS edits to hide the message as that just means good people end up having to do bad things because of the illegal actions of others who would circumvent the measures anyway.
Sadly the only way to really enforce anything proactively to stop the bad guys would be to encode the software, and nobody wants that.
Okay, in the case of Luke's point in post #41, if he wasn't required to enter a license for his localhost testing, then he could then use the -TESTINSTALL key on the "live" test site outside the localhost. I'm assuming that in that case he's wanting to develop locally (so my suggestion of no key for localhost works) and then test it somewhere on his development server before going live - is that right Luke?
sunrisecc - I'm just curious - why do you prefer to test on a real server? Not saying there's anything at all wrong with that - everyone has different ways of working - I'd just assumed that the majority (of the minority of us that are affected by this in some way) would develop/test locally and then maybe have one test install on a live server before pushing a site live.
I didn't see where they pointed that out... I think I must be misunderstanding you. If you mean this post of Luke's would bring the banne back although he's working locally, the IP address should still be 192.168.0.1:
I like the idea of hiding the notice if the url is http://localhost or the IP address is in the range of 192.168.0.1-192.168.0.255 (so basically it's local - even allow for a few subnets so do 192.168.2... and 192.168.0.3... and they'll still only be local and also allow for the scneario that someone at a big company is developing something internally) - seems to be the simplest solution and gets the job done. In fact, is EVERYTHING with an IP address starting 192.168. local? It would be a pretty easy check.
I think the thing to bear in mind is that anyone trying to be crafty and circumvent the license on a live site will probably get the nulled software from one of the less savoury download sites on the web anyway, whereas folks installing multiple copies on localhost aren't being crafty, and are probably also the ones most likely to be giving something back to the community in terms of mods, hooks, skins or whatever. I know it's not really penalising people the way it is at the moment, it's just an annoyance for people developing locally that wasn't there before ;)
The slightly more annoying thing if you create multiple test installations on localhost (localhost as in it's local on your PC - only you're ever going to see or use this installation and it's not web accessible for those that didn't know the term) is that even if you changed the CSS to get rid of the warning message, you'll find that the skin editor is disabled. Not sure if it affects what additional packages you can install as well (not tried, it's quite probably fine)?
Thing is it's a perfectly legitimate scenario for people writing multiple mods that want a clean install per mod they're creating (it's a good way to be able to check if things are conflicting with one another), as well as those web developers who are mocking up sites on a laptop quickly to show to clients before actually clinching the deal (don't need to buy a license until you've got the work and can properly start work on the site) as well as those of us who dabble with various website ideas on their LAMP/XAMPP installations locally and only push one or two of them live each year or so (I'm in this category - testing out a few website ideas, but not sure which one to go with).
It's a very big, annoying message for those few of us that fall into any of the above dev-type categories, and we're not actually doing anything wrong (in the sense of we're not running live boards or doing anyone out of any money - I suspect that if the terms and conditions of use have now changed to reflect that you can have one live and one test install per license then legally it is wrong, but I would suggest that if that's the case even in the above scenarios then that shouldn't be the case).
I'm open to discussion on this, just please don't jump up and down and accuse me of being a pirate. I'm a deckhand at best In all seriousness, I've been a paying customer since 2005 so I'm not out to do anything malicious or to trick IPB out of any money.
Well yes, that too, but my point is that some folks seem to be confusing it with the original Nexus and it's a totally different product.
[quote name='Wolfie' date='13 August 2010 - 03:01 PM'] @Peter.B(rady)
This isn't just an e-commerce module, it also offers the ability to provide support in general, offer advertising and is like a major step up from IP.Subscriptions.
Also, I think IPS just wanted to use the name Nexus because it just sounds so darned cool. :thumbsup: