Haven't installed this yet, looks good, but just a little rant. {rant on} This new trend of naming new extensions like people... (Janine, Mary & David) is silly and confusing. Is there anything wrong with naming it based on what it does, e.g. STICKY DISCUSSION HIDER {rant off}
*edit: removed screaming boldface after explanation*
I'm also sorry to hear that but I must say that generally speaking it is a little silly. Aslong as they have decent descriptions and are well tagged I dont mind though. Janine has almost become a member of this forum at the rate she's being talked about!
Personal reasons aside, there are drawbacks to using "descriptive" names for add-ons.
A descriptive name might not be accurate any longer if you add to or change the functionality of your add-on (a trap I've fallen into before). Also it can cause confusion if there's another add-on out there with the same functionality.
I agree that a good description is much more important than a descriptive name. Besides, we're making Vanilla add-ons, not heart medication. We can afford to be a little informal.
Sq., can see the 'similar add-ons' issue, but IMHO add-ons are like functions/procedures in a program: - Small is better. Simple is better. - If it grows too large, split it up into logical units. - If the name does not cover what it does, rename it.
Hence, an add-on that does something new should be a NEW add-on, and any add-on that's too difficult to describe because it resembles a swiss army knife should be split into separate distinct add-ons. Wouldn't you do the same thing while programming?
The 'changing functionality' point is the *exact* reason to *avoid* non-descriptive names, as archived discussions about the add-on would no longer make sense and 'non-current' knowledge isn't good enough to refer another person to the right add-on.
Personally, the thought of this new trend resulting in a list of 20 installed add-ons with names like Jack, Jill, Tom, Dick & Harry, requiring me to read the descriptions or look them up on the add-on site makes me cringe... Who has the time to keep current with all of that?
If a developer desire to 'brand' their add-ons, more power to them, but why promote more confusion? Ex, "Squirrel's Discussion Thread Starter for Blogs" tells me way more than "Janine" "Janine - Blogging Integration Tools for Vanilla" as well...
Maybe someone else can help me understand your issue.
You said: When I enable your extension, I can see everyone else's private discussions (and I unchecked that permission for my role), but can't access them. I don't want to see them at all - just like when the extension was disabled.
If you could email me a screenprint of what you see, that would help me a lot.
I don't know if this is what you guys are talking about, but I had something similar - because of some conflict with another add-on or hack of mine, I saw all discussions instead of just the ones from unblocked categories.
To fix: replace lines 35-36 with:
$SB->AddWhere('t', 'Sticky', '', 0, '=', 'and', '', '1', '1');
$SB->AddWhere('t', 'CategoryID', '', $CategoryToShow, '=', 'or');
$SB->EndWhereGroup();
[This puts the new clause in parenthesis so that it parses correctly with its surroundings]
Comments
{rant on}
This new trend of naming new extensions like people... (Janine, Mary & David) is silly and confusing.
Is there anything wrong with naming it based on what it does, e.g. STICKY DISCUSSION HIDER
{rant off}
*edit: removed screaming boldface after explanation*
Condolances, Jim.
Comments in the code say the extension is dedicated to his nephew, who recently passed in an accident.
"Sorry to hear that Jim..."
!polp (re-inserts foot as due punishment)
A descriptive name might not be accurate any longer if you add to or change the functionality of your add-on (a trap I've fallen into before). Also it can cause confusion if there's another add-on out there with the same functionality.
I agree that a good description is much more important than a descriptive name. Besides, we're making Vanilla add-ons, not heart medication. We can afford to be a little informal.
- Small is better. Simple is better.
- If it grows too large, split it up into logical units.
- If the name does not cover what it does, rename it.
Hence, an add-on that does something new should be a NEW add-on, and any add-on that's too difficult
to describe because it resembles a swiss army knife should be split into separate distinct add-ons.
Wouldn't you do the same thing while programming?
The 'changing functionality' point is the *exact* reason to *avoid* non-descriptive names, as archived
discussions about the add-on would no longer make sense and 'non-current' knowledge isn't good enough
to refer another person to the right add-on.
Personally, the thought of this new trend resulting in a list of 20 installed add-ons with names like Jack,
Jill, Tom, Dick & Harry, requiring me to read the descriptions or look them up on the add-on site makes
me cringe... Who has the time to keep current with all of that?
If a developer desire to 'brand' their add-ons, more power to them, but why promote more confusion?
Ex, "Squirrel's Discussion Thread Starter for Blogs" tells me way more than "Janine"
"Janine - Blogging Integration Tools for Vanilla" as well...
You said: When I enable your extension, I can see everyone else's private discussions (and I unchecked that permission for my role), but can't access them. I don't want to see them at all - just like when the extension was disabled.
If you could email me a screenprint of what you see, that would help me a lot.