143 replies to this topic

[dancingbear]

And whatever do you do when that is not the goal? when you actually need to modify default functionality in an application(not the skin)?
You mod your files too to save this(which, frankly.... I've not heard of, or seen, on forums with >20k online at once... I'm CERTAIN Ryan H and others would have been on this like white on rice as well)?

I can modify the IPB files, that's not a problem.

But it becomes a problem when I'd need to do the same file hacks after each upgrade (been there, done that), which is why an easy way to include a single php-include across all skins would be the ideal solution.

[Marcher Technologies]

I can modify the IPB files, that's not a problem.

But it becomes a problem when I'd need to do the same file hacks after each upgrade (been there, done that), which is why an easy way to include a single php-include across all skins would be the ideal solution.

That is the problem.... so adverse to hooks you hack up IPB like it was 2.x again?
How is a php include statement lighter than a hook(basically same code in said include, no include run) again?
How is it even as precise? How does it chain(oh wait, I know, it doesn't, you put every single mod you want in the core files every single upgrade, we see how well that has gone for you...)?

[Mikey]

an easy way to include a single php-include across all skins would be the ideal solution.

That's a hook...?

[dancingbear]

That is the problem.... so adverse to hooks you hack up IPB like it was 2.x again?

I don't want to hack it - it's because I don't that I'm posting here.

How is a php include statement lighter than a hook(basically same code in said include, no include run) again?

because it's *only* the include, whereas via a hook it's the hook *and* the include.

The difference might be small, but there is a difference. And that small difference can be the difference between my forums continuing to work in a usable manner, and not working at all.

(yes, I could spunk another £5k on bigger/better/more servers, but that requires me to have that £5k, and the inclination to spend it on those servers - which, for the less than 48 hours each year that my servers max out, isn't worth it).

How is it even as precise?

It's no less precise. How could it be? What would get run with any *real* purpose is the include and nothing else.

[Marcher Technologies]

I don't want to hack it - it's because I don't that I'm posting here.


because it's *only* the include, whereas via a hook it's the hook *and* the include.

The difference might be small, but there is a difference. And that small difference can be the difference between my forums continuing to work in a usable manner, and not working at all.

(yes, I could spunk another £5k on bigger/better/more servers, but that requires me to have that £5k, and the inclination to spend it on those servers - which, for the less than 48 hours each year that my servers max out, isn't worth it).


It's no less precise. How could it be? What would get run with any *real* purpose is the include and nothing else.

why the heck? if you are hooking in, what the ***** do you need an include for?
You are adding that load yourself, it has nothing to do with hook or not, it has to do with you hell-bent on including files directly instead of said code in said hook.

[dancingbear]

That's a hook...?

in effect, yes - but without the extra overhead of an actual hook.

[dancingbear]

why the heck? if you are hooking in, what the ***** do you need an include for?

Eh? I don't want to be using a hook!!

I want to use an include, so that I have one file dealing with the EU cookie issue for all my website (most of which is outside of IPB).

I don't want to use a hook, because that carries an extra server overhead.

[Marcher Technologies]

Eh? I don't want to be using a hook!!

I want to use an include, so that I have one file dealing with the EU cookie issue for all my website (most of which is outside of IPB).

I don't want to use a hook, because that carries an extra server overhead.

there is no additional overhead more than you add.... you are the one including another file... likely off an external path no-less... I do hope you are not using relative paths.
the functionality is present to do exactly what you ask, however would they call your method/code if they did not load it?
The hook is exactly what you ask, even if you are too stubborn to use it.

[dancingbear]

there is no additional overhead more than you add.

Really? IPB have invented some code that requires no processor time?

Wow. They should sell that idea to Intel or someone, they could all retire.

the functionality is present to do exactly what you ask,

natively, it is not. Extras need to be done to IPB to get that functionality.

however would they call your method/code if they did not load it?

eh?

[Ryan H.]

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.

In fact, using a parse code or PHP block in a template is probably worse.

[Marcher Technologies]

Really? IPB have invented some code that requires no processor time?

Wow. They should sell that idea to Intel or someone, they could all retire.



natively, it is not. Extras need to be done to IPB to get that functionality.



eh?

see IPSLib, firstly.
You are correct, it is not to PHP, it IS to IPB, and it IS exactly what you asked, custom output on every skin.
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.

[dancingbear]

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.

[Marcher Technologies]

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.

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.

[dancingbear]

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.

[Marcher Technologies]

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.

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!

[Rimi]

Marcher, you're getting trolled. He wants to stick in a chunk of code into all the skins with minimal effort. The best and greatest option for this is a template hook. He is refusing to do this and justifies his assertions with what you and I know to be irrational logic. 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. I try not to be rude here, but you're literally dealing with someone who has a superiority complex. It's either that or a case of ignorance incarnate. Either way why waste your time with this? You've given him a viable solution. He insists on travelling down his own path fueled by stubbornness. Just ignore him. The content of his posts have already categorized him for what he is and no matter how hard you try you can't convince those who refuse to listen.

[Ryan H.]

You're right, it was stupid of me to think that working for years as a professional web developer with IP.Board and very-high-traffic websites means anything. I apologize; obviously you know this best.

[Rimi]

You're right, it was stupid of me to think that working for years as a professional web developer with IP.Board and very-high-traffic websites means anything. I apologize; obviously you know this best.

Your sarcasm is going to backfire and you'll just be feeding his ego.

[dancingbear]

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.

[dancingbear]

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).