Upgrade should work fine.will it be possible to "upgrade" from XF 1.4 towards XF 2.0 ?
Or will XF 2.0 be a separate install which will not work with previous XF-versions ?
Its true that it is beyond 98% of XF customers, especially those running on shared platforms, and do this properly you really should be using something like Redis, but IMO nor should XenForo limit itself by making a conscious decision that it isn't going to develop those features that big forums really want. A feature like this is a paradigm shift for XF, into turning the software which is fairly retrospective in nature to something that addresses the issues of now. I think you'd surprised at how many customers would be willing to make that investment into the work required to have this feature. Certainly we'd be willing to pay for a ;premium' product if it means putting investment into area which isn't going to be utilised by the majority of users.
Umm No.I think it's time to reconsider every function that we are accustomed to since the last century
I think OS X Yosemite is a step forward, by the way. Oh, and I quite like Windows 8 too.
Really, why, as we are in a world that has wi-fi everywhere, quad core smart phones, talks of 5G mobile internet before even 4G is out of its infancy and "phablets" quickly becoming normal, why on earth would we need a mobile optimised style? Responsive design is the way forward, and we already have it.
Based on passed history in the vB days, I'd speculate that you'll definitely be able to tell the difference between XF 1.X and XF 2.X at a glance. Kier is a graphic designer after all.
Yes if you're in UK or US.Really, why, as we are in a world that has wi-fi everywhere, quad core smart phones, talks of 5G mobile internet before even 4G is out of its infancy and "phablets" quickly becoming normal, why on earth would we need a mobile optimised style? Responsive design is the way forward, and we already have it.
Do you remember the old Kier's sneak peek about VB 4.0? I remember that i'm very impressed about the updates, and now i've the same emotion about this new XF 2.0. In these years i hoped to see "the revolution" on forum software...hope to see this dream now realized.
I actually think of XenForo as a framework first, forum second. But yeah the comment was...Ummmm... but it's a forum . . .
This reminds me a three year old discussion and elaborated response from @Kier along with some followup workarounds. I think the Web is advancing with rapid pace for last few years, hence there should be no harm in implementing some features that will largely help big forums that might be just a few when it comes to head count. And for larger audience a graceful degradation should be fine.I'd love to do this, but how many XenForo customers do you suppose have access to the necessary long-polling webserver? Trying to achieve it with Apache or similar would have apocalyptically bad consequences.
To answer this I need to explain the internals of web servers, and the nature of long polling.
Most web servers have at their core the function to build a web page and display it as quickly as possible. While doing this, large amounts of system resources are dedicated to building that web page in order to deliver it fast. In its default configuration, Apache only allows a relatively small number of pages to be built concurrently, and any requests it receives while maxed-out will be queued waiting for those to complete. As the pages are expected to be built very quickly (in a second or less), one rarely notices this queuing.
Long polling works by sending a request for the web server and leaving it open - the script effectively goes to sleep and polls its data source at regular intervals, any sending a response back to the client when it has new data. This means that the connection can remain open for minutes at a time. While the script may not be doing anything, the web server has to maintain the connection - and for most webservers, as I said above, there will be a large amount of resources allocated to that request in the expectation of a fast return. If one is long-polling on Apache, one will very quickly reach the maximum number of concurrent connections, and as a result normal page requests will end up being queued for a potentially very long time, delivering a truly awful user experience.
There are specialist webservers out there that are optimised for long polling, but Apache is most certainly not one of them, and one is highly unlikely to have access to them on any kind of shared or non-dedicated host. For those comparing Facebook functionality, it's worth noting that Facebook's long-polling requests are directed to a completely different set of servers from those that handle regular page loads.
So, the answer is that while we could implement long polling in XenForo, it would be highly inadvisable for most of our customers to actually enable it on their webservers, and therefore in the interest of developing features with the broadest appeal and applicability, we have not done so.
If they are working on features which can only be used by 1% of license owners, then the other 99% will gain nothing from the time and effort spent.hence there should be no harm in implementing some features that will largely help big forums that might be just a few when it comes to head count.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.