dancingbear

+Clients
  • Content count

    149
  • Joined

  • Last visited


About dancingbear

  • Rank
    IPB Full Member

Profile Information

  • Gender Male

dancingbear's Activity

  1. dancingbear added a post in a topic: [RESOLVED] HELP - board not working after clean install   

    yep, re-installing the hook worked.
     
    Thanks again.
  2. dancingbear added a post in a topic: [RESOLVED] HELP - board not working after clean install   

    Thanks....
     
    > By (2) did you mean the 'Rebuild Master Data' ?
    yes, that's what I meant.
     
     
    Tho surely you meant for me to put ...
    ini_set("display_errors", '1'); in conf_global.php, and not the file you said?
     
    I tried it exactly as you said, to no effect (it just printed a "1" [without the quotes]), so I thought I might as well try in conf_global.php and found the line was already in there, but with a '0' [with the single quotes] instead of a 1. So I changed the 0 to 1 and tried again, and did get the error output.
     
    The error it's reporting is related to a 3rd party hook, so I'll re-install that and hopefully that'll sort it. I have seen this error before and have managed to sort it (I forget exactly how), so I'm sure I'll manage again.
     
    Thanks for your help. :smile:
  3. dancingbear added a post in a topic: [RESOLVED] HELP - board not working after clean install   

    So, to try and get the main skin working I've done all of the following:-
     
    1. checked permissions in diagnoostics
    2. recached master skin data
    3. recached the skins
    4. have run all theree of the button options at the top of the page in Cache Management
  4. dancingbear added a post in a topic: [RESOLVED] HELP - board not working after clean install   

    thanks - that's got the missing words bit sorted. I think I'd tried every other cache but that one.
  5. dancingbear added a post in a topic: [RESOLVED] HELP - board not working after clean install   

    I've just done a clean install of my IPB, with all the code freshly downloaded from here.
     
    It worked initially, tho the 'words' were missing in the ACP for the menus, and some of the labels on the board index, etc. Does anyone know how to fix the missing words, please?
     
    And also, the forums index won't load at all now either, I get a white page, and the scripts have obviously errored (which is odd, because they did initially work).
     
    I've checked everything I can, rebult caches (I think, it's hard to know when there's no words to follow),
     
    Any idea gratefully recieved.
  6. dancingbear added a post in a topic: FURL_CACHE_PATH file   

    Is this issue related to people's forums getting hacked, by any chance?
  7. dancingbear added a post in a topic: ipb authentication from different subdomains   

    and the answer for anyone that might want it is...
     
    You need to edit the conf_global file so that the right subdomain is being referenced anywhere that a URL is referenced within it.
     
    So, for example, the upload URL entry originally looks something like this....

     $INFO['upload_url']            =    'http://www.domain.com/forums/uploads';  
    If you change it to be this...

    if ($_SERVER["SERVER_NAME"] == "www.domain.com"){   $INFO['upload_url']            =    'http://www.domain.com/forums/uploads'; }elseif ($_SERVER["SERVER_NAME"] == "m.domain.com"){   $INFO['upload_url']            =    'http://m.domain.com/forums/uploads'; }  
    then everything works as it should do with the authentication from both subdomains, and the forums. :)
  8. dancingbear added a post in a topic: ipb authentication from different subdomains   

    I've built a 'front end' onto the forums (which is really just the website that the forums are a part of, on the www subdomain), where users of the website authenticate to IPB, and everything works great.
     
    I've also created a mobile version of the same website, which works in its own webspace (and uses an 'm' subdomain) and which includes a 'dummy' version of the forums within its webspace for the authentication whilst directing users to the install of the forums on the www subdomain for their forums use. Again, everything works great.
     
    However, I'd really like 'www' and 'm' subdomains to share the same webspace, with the 'm' subdomain as an alias of the 'www' subdomain.
     
    But when i do that it causes anyone who accesses the website via the 'm' (aliased) subdomain to be re-directed to the forums rather than them get the page they've requested. If I remove the IPB authentication then the redirection to the forums goes away.
     
    Having delved into things a little bit I can see that it's when the authentication processes this line
             * call the initialisation function          */         $this->init(); that is causing the redirection to the forums install.
     
    Does anyone know of a way to stop this happening, please?
  9. dancingbear added a post in a topic: (RSyvarth) Social Groups   

    I've managed to sort out the problem I was having above: the forums category that the groups forums were within didn't have the necessary permissions to post.
     
    ===========
     
    I've now got a further problem which I see was raised with the author last summer - that the mobile-skin boards index shows each forum as having unread posts (when they don't) via the icon used for them - but which wasn't fixed in the last update. So hopefully this can be a reminder for it to be fixed in the next update...?
  10. dancingbear added a post in a topic: (RSyvarth) Social Groups   

    I installed Social Groups 2.0.2 a few days ago (on IPB v3.44), and am having problems. I'm hoping someone can help...?
     
    I can create groups, add members, etc .... but for some reason the members and group admin can see the group's forum and topics, but they're not able to post (it gives the error msg: "You are not allowed to use this forum").
     
    Is anyone able to help me sort out this problem please?
  11. dancingbear added a post in a topic: All IPB forums breaching EU law   

    [quote name='Lucy Heartfilia' timestamp='1343136761' post='2290398']
    Marcher, you're getting trolled.
    :rolleyes:

    The default words of someone too stupid to engage their brain.

    [quote name='Lucy Heartfilia' timestamp='1343136761' post='2290398']
    He wants to stick in a chunk of code into all the skins with minimal effort.
    correct.


    [quote name='Lucy Heartfilia' timestamp='1343136761' post='2290398']
    The best and greatest option for this is a template hook.
    as currently exists, yes. It's the only option.

    My first post was to say I wished there was another, better option. Because there *ARE* better options, if they were built into the IPB code.

    [quote name='Lucy Heartfilia' timestamp='1343136761' post='2290398']
    He is refusing to do this and justifies his assertions with what you and I know to be irrational logic.
    It's not irrational to want the simplist solution which creates the least server load.

    It is irrational to be unable to recognise that things can be done in different, and sometimes better, ways.


    [quote name='Lucy Heartfilia' timestamp='1343136761' post='2290398']
    As if that wasn't enough indication that he's a troll, you only need to look at his first post where he thinks he understands the world and all its politics.
    :rolleyes:

    No, I just understand one-sided stupid views are not the only views. Given that this thread is full of one-sided stupid views I thought I'd offer up an alternative, as a way of perhaps pointing out others stupidity.

    Not everyone is so stupid to think that any action a nation state or supranational organisation might make is automatically bad, or even purposeless. :)


    [quote name='Lucy Heartfilia' timestamp='1343136761' post='2290398']
    I try not to be rude here, but you're literally dealing with someone who has a superiority complex.
    no, just someone with 30 years of computing experience who wishes to mqake optimum use of his already busy servers.

    [quote name='Lucy Heartfilia' timestamp='1343136761' post='2290398']
    It's either that or a case of ignorance incarnate.
    the stupid are those who cannot think because they'rew blinded by their prejudices. ;)


    [quote name='Lucy Heartfilia' timestamp='1343136761' post='2290398']
    You've given him a viable solution.
    it is not a viable solution within my working parameters - which is what I'm trying to get thru to people here. :rolleyes:
  12. dancingbear added a post in a topic: All IPB forums breaching EU law   

    [quote name='Marcher Technologies' timestamp='1343136725' post='2290397']
    how so? you want a php include, without a php include? the parent file, the hook, should be what you are including now rather than including it at all!

    No, I want a php include. JUST a php include.

    There would be no 'parent file' - which would be a IPB hook. That has an extra overhead of it's own, before getting to what the hook might do (either internally, or externally by loading in a php-include).
  13. dancingbear added a post in a topic: All IPB forums breaching EU law   

    [quote name='Marcher Technologies' timestamp='1343136514' post='2290395']
    only because you run an external include inside the hook file!
    You are adding that additional load yourself.
    it goes back to exactly what ryan said above, they are as heavy as you make them.

    if I could run the include without the hook, then there is no load from the hook. The hook has an overhead of its own, outside of what might be done within that 'hook' (or, alternatively, 'include').

    The additional load comes from the hook, nowhere else.

    My way:-
    1. load include file.
    1. run include code ('do process').

    hook way:-
    1. is there a hook?
    2. load hook
    3. 'do process'

    Tell me again that they're the same. :lol:
  14. dancingbear added a post in a topic: All IPB forums breaching EU law   

    [quote name='Marcher Technologies' timestamp='1343136417' post='2290392']
    You want a php include on every skin on every page.... they call your hook class, and they call a method in that class... there is no way to have the desired functionality without that occurring.

    incorrect, laughably incorrect.

    It's probably the case that it can't be done as things stand with IPB, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be.
  15. dancingbear added a post in a topic: All IPB forums breaching EU law   

    [quote name='Ryan H.' timestamp='1343136236' post='2290391']
    Dude, hooks have very very little inherent overhead. IP.Board is checking whether there are any hooks for all of the hook points anyway--if there is one, it just includes and executes it, then. You can make heavy hooks, yes, but that's only if you require them to do heavy things. In the case of a script that shows some text based on a cookie, there is no benefit to modifying your templates to include a file over simply pulling in a hook.

    that's simply not true. Good job I'm not daft enough to believe you. :)

    The differences might be minimal, but there *ARE* differences.

    That minimal gets to make a difference at peak loads.

About Me