XF 2.3 ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
We aren't talking that it would necessarily make them "better"... but think "stable for availability". Odds of XF dropping an existing add-on is not high... odds of a 3rd party developer leaving the scene is much higher.
Was thinking about this a little this morning... It might be a potential path for XenForo to think about having a different tier of addons. Right now we have first-party addons (made by XenForo, Ltd.). We also have third-party addons made by entities with no affiliation or partnership with XenForo.

You hear less about second-party normally, but a second-party addon could be ones that were vetted/reviewed to some degree by XenForo (I believe XenForo already does this to whitelist approved addons that can be installed on XenForo Cloud installations). Since that's already being done, maybe simply flag the whitelisted addons in the Resource Manager so people know which ones apply. If your addon is whitelisted for XenForo Cloud (XenForo, Ltd. thinks it's good enough to be installed on installations they manage), could maybe take it one step further and sign an agreement with XenForo saying that if you die or cease to support your stuff, rights to the code rolls over to them and they could do whatever they see fit (either give it to another developer or keep it in-house). Not quite as good as first-party, but it's a step up from third-party at least and offers some level of protection against disappearing devs. šŸ¤·šŸ»ā€ā™‚ļø
 
(I believe XenForo already does this to whitelist approved addons that can be installed on XenForo Cloud installations)
Not really.

Most add-ons are allowed by default but any which contain potentially dangerous functions flagged by the scanning software, such as assert, eval, etc. are given a once over to confirm there are no issues in how those functions are being used.

Other than that, we don't do any other form of code review.
 
Not really.

Most add-ons are allowed by default but any which contain potentially dangerous functions flagged by the scanning software, such as assert, eval, etc. are given a once over to confirm there are no issues in how those functions are being used.

Other than that, we don't do any other form of code review.
Okay, well still could be a thing to have second-party options. Or notā€¦ šŸ¤·šŸ»ā€ā™‚ļø
 
@Chris D Does 2.2.13 support the .webp filetype? I didn't see it in the changelog. If not, I'd be really grateful if it could please be added soon as it's a real pita converting .webp files to .jpg files.

Anyway, glad to see movement and a slew of improvements.
 
@Chris D Does 2.2.13 support the .webp filetype? I didn't see it in the changelog. If not, I'd be really grateful if it could please be added soon as it's a real pita converting .webp files to .jpg files.

Anyway, glad to see movement and a slew of improvements.
webp is a 2.3 thing.

 
  • Like
Reactions: FTL
..major XF 2.3 feature is awaiting my review (one of the major popular ones from the first page of the Top suggestions list)...
It's not a criticism but I sincerely thought that with the release of version 2.2.13 we could have this surprise. We are curious by nature :).
 
It's not a criticism but I sincerely thought that with the release of version 2.2.13 we could have this surprise. We are curious by nature :).
As lovely as that would be bringing a new major feature into a minor patch release would've broken the Internet šŸ˜‚
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom