XenForo 2.0 Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.

sbj

Well-known member
To be honest, yes, unless we stayed on 1.x forever, though I imagine many add-ons written for 1.0 won't work with 1.4 anyway. The transition is the same that happens with the changes within the 1.x branch, but much larger. Eventually there need to be significant changes that break compatibility; when that happens, the first number gets changed.

Because of the amount of customizability that XF offers, add-ons can hook in anywhere and do a lot of custom or unexpected things. As such, it's simply not possible to maintain the level of backwards compatibility to allow old code to work, particularly if it integrates into core code.

Just to be clear. I am on your side. I love Xenforo and want that it progresses. And for this you need these cuts. I understand that and accept that.

Yeah many add-ons written for 1.0 won't work for 1.4, but most did for 1.1 and they got adjusted. And then so on. So an adjusting was needed.
If the system would stay like it did from 1.2 to 1.3 or from 1.3 to 1.4, that would be fine. So from 1.4 to 2.0. That is ok.
But you talk about that everything will be wiped away.

Ok, then I ask for too much. I understand. But there is another solution for this. If you can't provide enough compatibility due to new structure, why don't you add many of the add-ons by default to 2.0? That would make you happy and us happy.
 

sbj

Well-known member
How is what is happening with XenForo 2.x any different from server/desktop/mobile operating systems enforcing developers to update their applications to be compatible. It happens all the time in the software industry, XenForo is being no different.
The big difference is that other systems have a huge core of basic settings and they keep them. So when I changed from Vista to Windows 7, that didnt hurt me or now I have Windows 8.1, still the same. (I am not talking about the side of developers, this is their problem, I cant talk about that).
But you must admit that it is not a coincidence that here are hundreds of add-ons. You may argue about which should be core or which not, but the amount is just too much to ignore this. So the best solution for all is, either try to keep the compatibility for the major of add-ons, or add them by default to the core.
 

Daniel Hood

Well-known member
Ok, then I ask for too much. I understand. But there is another solution for this. If you can't provide enough compatibility due to new structure, why don't you add many of the add-ons by default to 2.0? That would make you happy and us happy.
That's not realistic and that's how you end up with bloat. Not everybody with a license buys all the add ons nor do they want them included.

I think you're overestimating the transition. The adaption rate is going to be much slower going from 1.x to 2.0 compared to 1.3 -> to 1.4 and especially from 1.4 to 1.4.1, etc... This is the difference of a huge update.

If you want more modern code, a higher php requirement, new core features like navigation system (which Mike kind of implied was coming, in my opinion), then you have to accept that big things are going to change. Let's focus on just the navigation manager (which I may be wrong about). Currently, most add ons add a navigation tab in a specific way. If there's an official manager adapted, that would require all of those add ons to be updated. Their old way would likely be incompatible. Individually that's not a big deal and will be adapted quickly (on average, I feel).

Another example is the design changes (Css -> LESS), you should expect there to be some delay in getting your themes. Most devs and designers will update their add ons and styles quickly but it is going to require more patience. Just relax, you'll be fine. Nobody is requiring you to update instantly, or at all to be honest. If you're happy with your 1.x system and your style and your add ons, stay there until 2.0 styles and add ons catch up. I'm sure it won't take long, yes us devs and designers will have a lot of work to do. It's worth it though.

Did you never go trhough a vb2->v3, vb3 -> vb4, vb4 -> vb5, phpbb2 -> phpbb3, etc transition? You seem way more concerned than you should be.
 

sbj

Well-known member
No, I didn't go through this transition as an admin. Hence this is my first attempt in being an admin and I feel so lucky that I chose Xenforo over the others.
I hope that it'll be fine. I moan now about this but I trust in Xenforo's staff. Just I wanted that they know that there are also poor souls like me who depend on add-ons :).
 

Andrej

Well-known member
The big difference is that other systems have a huge core of basic settings and they keep them.
2.x will include most (if not all) of the 1.x core features. I don't see the difference (unless you are talking about something else).
 

Digital Doctor

Well-known member
Another example is the design changes (Css -> LESS), you should expect there to be some delay in getting your themes. Most devs and designers will update their add ons and styles quickly but it is going to require more patience.
Is there a way to give addon makers a "Jump start" on the Xenforo 2.0 changes .... BEFORE 2.0 is released ?
ie. help them understand the Major Changes ... so they are more prepared ?
 

thedude

Well-known member
You can't build a 2016 Camaro using the frame of a '92 Camaro. Your old seat covers won't fit, and your aftermarket accessories will need upgrading. But the new Camaro will allow for much improved accessories, have a more efficient engine, and pack a bigger punch under the hood.
 

sbj

Well-known member
2.x will include most (if not all) of the 1.x core features. I don't see the difference.
But this is exactly what concerns me. My point is the core of 1.x has so many things not included. THAT is why we need so many add-ons or so many add-ons are created right now. If 2.x stays the same, then again we will need the same add-ons again. So either save us this with making old add-ons compatible (which will not happen) or extend the core massively.
For example. What is more fundamental than turning on or off things? Nothing I would say.
There are so many settings for user upgrades, trophy system but NO option to disable all this stuff. Those stuff are so annoying but yet in core no option to disable it.
I can't disable rss (buttons). I can't remove profile posts or following. Basic things, really basic. I am not talking about a feature, a new thing to extend the forum. These are build-in things in xenforo by default, but no default options to disable them. Things like that.
But I don't want to start again a topic about what should be in core or not. Just giving an example.
 

sinucello

Well-known member
Did you never go trhough a vb2->v3, vb3 -> vb4, vb4 -> vb5, phpbb2 -> phpbb3, etc transition? You seem way more concerned than you should be.
Personally I went from phpBB 1.4.4 in 2002 to phpBB 2.0.3 and then vB 3.6.7 .. 3.84 .. until 4.2.0 before switching to xenForo in mid 2014.

Of course the software or version changes along that way caused problems and there was always work to do. But I switched to xenForo only recently and during the last 6 month I spent a major part of my free time (approx 60 man days) and a four-digit euro amount for research and add-on development to give xenForo the functionality that my users were used to: 60+ add-ons, more than 20 custom TMS edits, writing manuals, discussions, you know what I mean. Of course we now have a much better system and a lot of useful things on top of that.

But after working so hard, you can imagine that I`m not that enthusiastic about hearing that I`ll maybe have to do all that for a second time within the next 12 months if I don`t want to find myself riding a dead horse again.

Enough whining, I have trust in the developers and the great community and it won`t be so bad.

Maybe you xenForo gurus can have a look at this:
http://typo3.org/news/article/embrace-and-innovate-typo3-cms-7/
to see how other systems deal with overhauling their product - or this on how to retain compatibility:
http://typo3.org/news/article/retaining-compatibility-to-typo3-cms6/

all the best,
Sacha
 

ibnesayeed

Well-known member
  • While you can still write CSS directly, LESS is now the primary language for styling. If you're not familiar with LESS, it's effectively CSS that's more powerful, including things like nesting selectors, mixins, and color manipulation functions. You can read more here: http://lesscss.org/
I hope the following will be possible because of LESS, if the ACP Styles section exposes variables that have inheritance hierarchy. (ExtJS theming is a nice example, although they use SASS.)
What a nice suggestion. I would appreciate if this is suggested as a feature request in a separate thread.

I can't tell how much I wished something like this. We run Urdu forum which is a complex script langues and hugely based of ligatures. A particular style in Urdu typography mainly used in printed material is called Nastaleeq which does not expand horizontally when more characters are added in a single ligature, instead, it expands horizontally and vertically both in a slanted fashion. This nature forces the font designer to leave enough space above and below xhight so that generally used all glyphs fit nicely. This means that a 12px Nastaleeq font will be roughly as small as a 9px serif font. Our community members complained a lot about smaller font size on forum initially and we had to change the font size of every single field to make it look nicer. It was such a painful experience.

Along the same lines, I would appreciate if there is a hierarchy or major category of font-family sets (is there one already that I am not aware of?) so that if we want to style user generate content in one font, menu items in another we don't have to go to every single component on an atomic level. But if we prefer overwriting some specific components, we should be able to do that as well. I am referring to the same approach as it was taken for the colors. There are categories of colors and if those are changes, every component that inherits color property from there gets that change.
 

Daniel Hood

Well-known member
Most people stopped at VB3 for that very reason :p
I don't think that was the only reason they didn't move onto vb4 or 5. :p

I do think there's going to be a decent amount of sites that stay on xf 1.x for several months, maybe even a year+ after release. The jump isn't going to be instant, that's for sure. Unless of course you don't use a custom style or any add ons and don't mind working out bugs. ;)
 

euantor

Well-known member
Is that an official project from the LESS developers or a side project like this one for SCSS?

https://github.com/leafo/scssphp/

It's a side project as far as I know. Also, note that both projects are from the same person/group ("leafo").

Whilst there's some discussion about development standard, is there a plan to make use of dependency management (Composer) for third party packages? If so, this could make life much easier for developers working with the system.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top