Blog Documentation Book a Demo
Vanilla 1 is no longer supported or maintained. If you need a copy, you can get it here.
HackerOne users: Testing against this community violates our program's Terms of Service and will result in your bounty being denied.

Whisper improvement

13»

Comments

  • StashStash ✭
    Actually, I reckon Whispers should be moved to an extension ;) At least that JS bit...
  • StashStash ✭
    Also, how hard would it be to make an extension that enables admins to allow users to turn selected extensions on and off?

    This way you could really have your cake and eat it, you can load the site up with quite a lot of extensions, but still enable the end user to have it "vanilla" or "salted beef". Yeah, profiles would be good...
  • MinisweeperMinisweeper New
    edited December 2006
    Whispers were moved to an extension then moved back again because it actually made the code heavier overall to take them out and still provide for the functionality. Having extensions on a per user basis would take a lot of thought by the server (i think). I believe you probably could cut stuff out at the render level, though, but i'm not sure how.
  • chuyskywalkerchuyskywalker
    Also, how hard would it be to make an extension that enables admins to allow users to turn selected extensions on and off?

    My opinion, that's a terrible idea. Extensions are site wide enhancements. If you want the extension on/off for users, have the extension provide a switch to do just that.

    I'd be pissed if users could turn off random extensions -- there's a lot of code in those and the results of combining different extension sets would be a whole nother ball game to diagnose vs. an extension with an option. That just seems like it goes against the point of extensions.
  • MinisweeperMinisweeper New
    I think when they said that they meant the users would only turn them off as far as they could see. They'd remain active for everyone else...
  • StashStash ✭
    Mini, yes, that's what I meant.

    Basically, Vanilla's incredibly configurable for the admin, but this would give the user the option as well. For instance, there are a few extensions that I use on my own forum which I'd lve to have here but can't. With this idea, if the admin's installed it you could choose to use it.

    Even just the ability to hide stuff (at the CSS render stage) would be handy IMO.
  • PoloPolo
    Ahh come on, "bloated", it is the worst excuse ever. Just some new features aren't bloating. Bloating is when it makes the forum harder to use and coded bad. New features are nothing but great!
  • MinisweeperMinisweeper New
    The thing is, though, that these work perfectly as extensions, and adding them into the core wouldnt (i believe) actually speed up their functionality, yet it may slow down the forum with their functionality disabled. The only reason something should ever go into the core is when it's a useful feature and running it as an extension actually causes the software to run slower than it would if the feature was part of the core (such as whispers), or when it's actually not possible to make it an extension (even with the necessary delegates).
This discussion has been closed.