dancingbear

+Clients
  • Content count

    151
  • Joined

  • Last visited


About dancingbear

  • Rank
    IPB Full Member

dancingbear's Activity

  1. dancingbear added a comment on a file Embed Tweets   

    Works for me on 3.4.8, but I did have to amend the code slightly.
    I followed the instructions as included in what you download, and then after installing the two 'Media Tag Replacements', I clicked on the 'edit media tag' link to the rigtht of each of them, and amended the text in the 'Media Replacement HTML' box., to add "http:" to the script source URL.

    <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><a href="https://twitter.com/$1/status/$2"></a></blockquote><script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>[/code] to [code]<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><a href="https://twitter.com/$1/status/$2"></a></blockquote><script async src="http://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>[/code]and then the same process for the 'Tweet Embed Statuses'
    It's also worth noting that you won't see anything if you make your embedded tweet post via the 'quick post' box which doesn't reload the page. You'll need the page to be fully-freshly loaded to see the embedded tweet.
     
    I hope this helps.
  2. dancingbear added a post in a topic All IPB forums breaching EU law   


    :rolleyes:

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


    correct.



    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.


    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.



    :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. :)



    no, just someone with 30 years of computing experience who wishes to mqake optimum use of his already busy servers.


    the stupid are those who cannot think because they'rew blinded by their prejudices. ;)



    it is not a viable solution within my working parameters - which is what I'm trying to get thru to people here. :rolleyes:
  3. dancingbear added a post in a topic All IPB forums breaching EU law   


    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).
  4. dancingbear added a post in a topic All IPB forums breaching EU law   


    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:
  5. dancingbear added a post in a topic All IPB forums breaching EU law   


    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.
  6. dancingbear added a post in a topic All IPB forums breaching EU law   


    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.
  7. dancingbear added a post in a topic All IPB forums breaching EU law   


    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. :lol:



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



    eh?
  8. dancingbear added a post in a topic All IPB forums breaching EU law   


    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.
  9. dancingbear added a post in a topic All IPB forums breaching EU law   


    in effect, yes - but without the extra overhead of an actual hook.
  10. dancingbear added a post in a topic All IPB forums breaching EU law   


    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.
  11. dancingbear added a post in a topic All IPB forums breaching EU law   


    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.
  12. dancingbear added a post in a topic All IPB forums breaching EU law   


    I can't quantify it, no. I'm not so anal to do a full analysis.

    But it *is* extra load within the IPB 'engine', which itself knows it has a load issue - which is precisely why there's a need for it to have a 'performance mode' (which is something I have to use at a points).

    All I need to do is read a cookie and display a bit of text at the top of the page dependent on that cookie's setting. Nothing of this needs to put anything but the tiniest load onto my server - while doing it thru IPB will put significantly more onto my server.

    The difference between methods might be small against what the server is able to handle, but that difference probably amounts to 100 extra users at nearly 10,000 simultaneous users.
  13. dancingbear added a post in a topic All IPB forums breaching EU law   


    you're forgetting that hooking is not maintainence-free, or even guaranteed to work after an update.

    Plus, as I said, it comes with overheads - very unnecessary overheads in this instance.
  14. dancingbear added a post in a topic All IPB forums breaching EU law   




    from that mod's own page....





    I have to hack my skins each time IPB does an update anyway, so where's the difference?

    I don't wish to add to the load thru the IPB 'engine' when a minimal solution is far far better for an extremely busy site. For some of us, those tiny differences in load get to make a very big difference to site usability at peak loads.
  15. dancingbear added a post in a topic All IPB forums breaching EU law   


    OK, my apologies for having misunderstood. But it's not exactly 'easy' all the same, and it's not the way I'll be going.


    that's only any good if it all fits with the system I've implemented across the rest of my website - which of course it doesn't. And as that mod states for itself, it's crap. ;)

    While I wish to comply with EU cookie law, I don't wish to kill my website. That would be just stupid. ;)