Textpattern CMS support forum
You are not logged in. Register | Login | Help
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
#196 2005-01-26 08:59:06
Re: rc2 and 1.0
Apologies, i misunderstood the nature of the discussion. In an ideal world, Textpattern would of course support every known web server setup. As it’s not an ideal world, Dean is supporting the most commonly used ones as well as having some basic requirements to run the software. I like the clean URL plugin for different hosts idea as an initial solution. Future versions could bundle these plugins etc.
Offline
#197 2005-01-26 10:36:43
Re: rc2 and 1.0
Well all about it is theory, because the ForceType method is not good (mostly because of lack of documentation). It should be fixed in 1.0 (I guess with simple and elegant rewrites rules, and maybe some “clean messy” URL like Plume-CMS) but it’s guesses and expectations.
So far, nothing if confirmed, apart that we are today and we are waiting :)
Offline
#198 2005-01-26 11:48:47
Re: rc2 and 1.0
> reid wrote:
> My first host never added MySQL (to this day) nor did I have .htaccess (a little tiny company called “Earthlink”), and my second host (another large one, with over 10,000 customers) ran Zeus, not Apache.
My first host, who shall remain nameless, originally did not offer PHP support. Then they added it for as an option for something like $10 a month. And now, if you are willing to move to the $29.95 level, you can have (gasp) 5 MySQL databases.
Offline
#199 2005-01-26 19:24:10
- nesher
- Archived Plugin Author
- Registered: 2004-02-23
- Posts: 15
Re: rc2 and 1.0
My first host, who shall remain nameless, originally did not offer PHP support. Then they added it for as an option for something like $10 a month. And now, if you are willing to move to the $29.95 level, you can have (gasp) 5 MySQL databases.
My first host offered php and one mysql database. The entire time my company was with them (an embarassingly long 3 and a half years) they never once upgraded PHP. I imagine they’re still on 4.0.x
Last edited by nesher (2005-01-26 19:25:12)
Offline
#200 2005-01-27 16:38:55
Re: rc2 and 1.0
Argh, is anyone else getting anxious for release 1.0 like myself? Not trying to rush anyone but i’d really like to get my hands on it!
Clean URL’s on IIS!
koopd.com
seventytwo.co.uk
—-
Graphic Designer, Wed Designer and Developer.
Offline
#201 2005-01-27 16:45:40
Re: rc2 and 1.0
> koopd wrote:
> Argh, is anyone else getting anxious for release 1.0 like myself? Not trying to rush anyone but i’d really like to get my hands on it!
You are not alone.
> Clean URL’s on IIS!
<code><troll> Useless. </troll></code>
Last edited by Jeremie (2005-01-27 16:46:26)
Offline
#202 2005-01-27 17:03:32
Re: rc2 and 1.0
I can wait.
For me, it’s not all about the “latest and greatest”. It’s all about “stable and most friendly”. I’m happy with RC1 right now, as it does everything I need from it. I’m not a programmer, so I don’t need to write a plugin. I’m a wannabe writer and wannabe designer. So long as RC1 works for what I need, I’m a happy guy.
Of course, the second I see 1.0 Final, I’ll upgrade, but, that’s beside the point.
The following is true
The above statement is false.
Offline
#203 2005-01-27 17:20:14
Re: rc2 and 1.0
The trouble is, we have absolutely no clues about how Dean will fix (if he does) the clean URL issues.
For me, the basic forcetype method don’t work (it should be it doesn’t, don’t know why). That leaves other ways, from zem_rewrite plugin to a external rewrite rules and rewrite php files, all of these others ways work quite well.
But most plugins, and some TXP bugged functions don’t. And I’m reluctant to rewrite dozens and dozens plugins and hacking TXP to debug it, if the day after 1.0 will make all that work go to trash.
And I need clean URLs.
This scenario repeat itselfs with others things, like severals Textile bugs, and the lack of localized help for example.
So it’s not really a technical issue, but a lack of visibility and a lack of communication (see the middle of this thread) one. And a major one. It’s standby now, and waiting…still waiting.. still waiting…
Offline
#204 2005-01-27 18:19:01
Re: rc2 and 1.0
Maybe it’s just me, but, I don’t exactly understand the hubbub about clean vs. messy. Granted, I’ve been fortunate enough to have a host that had /clean/ work directly out of the gate, and it hasn’t been much of an issue.
But, what exactly is the difference between going to say site.com/article/300/whatever-the-title, and going to site.com/index.php?id=300? Each takes you to the same article, each function the same way, and each works as well as the other.
Is there something I’m missing, or is it strictly a cosmetic reason? I’m not flaming, or starting to induce a riot here of clean vs. messy, I’m just curious how if one mode doesn’t work right, and another does work, and works just as well, what makes clean so desirable over messy?
The following is true
The above statement is false.
Offline
#205 2005-01-27 18:48:53
Re: rc2 and 1.0
SEO
Liberal. Geek.
Offline
#206 2005-01-27 18:53:25
Re: rc2 and 1.0
PeterS, the clean URLs as they come natively with TXP have one big drawback: the ID number. A good URL is not only search-engine friendly but also human-friendly, i.e. it should be easily remembered. That one number mars all efforts for easy handling between humans that does not involve copy and paste.
As soon as you try to give someone a URL there must not be a number in it because it will be forgotten.
Offline
#207 2005-01-27 19:14:00
Re: rc2 and 1.0
My understanding is that alex’s (zem’s) approach to clean URLS was incorporated into the soon to be released 1.0 so that they would be fully configurable, properly write out links and even work on IIS. That along with some stuff we did at textdrive to just make them work without htaccess etc.
<Disclaimer>
But then again I haven’t been paying much attention to the txp emails in my inbox other the one’s asking me to get alex up-and-running.
</Disclaimer>
Offline
#208 2005-01-27 19:22:20
Re: rc2 and 1.0
Jason : That would be the logical and more effective choice. I really, really hope it was Dean’s choice.
Peters : there are numbers of reasons. The most commons are human friendly, and bot friendly. Some are quite more complex or less obvious. I have several web sites, some with clean URL (by the way of software, or by hand for static websites) some without; it really depends on the project involved.
Offline
#209 2005-01-27 20:10:26
Re: rc2 and 1.0
Jason, that is some good news! Now I’m really craving for the Release.
Offline
#210 2005-01-27 23:18:43
- Chris
- Member
- Registered: 2004-02-26
- Posts: 22
Re: rc2 and 1.0
Ah Jason, you’re just teasing us now! ;-)
Offline