Blog Documentation Try Vanilla Cloud
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.
Options

Update on development

MarkMark Vanilla Staff
edited August 2005 in Vanilla 1.0 Help
I hate posting updates on development here in the forum, because they always get lost in the shuffle. I should really set up a blog on the main lussumo.com page, but I want to devote all of my free time to development and documentation. Plus, I think I *will* end up using the vanilla framework to make a new blog - so I don't want to waste any time working with some other blogging tool. I'm sick of documentation right now, so I've been doing some more work on the codebase. A few weeks ago I got this notion about how to speed things up in Vanilla, and today I did it. I thought it might give a minor increase in speed, but it turns out that it is a MAJOR increase in speed. Pages that were taking over 1 second to load here on my local server are now taking an average of 0.7 seconds to load. In my mind, that's a pretty impressive performance gain. Basically, I made the objectfactory load classes on demand, rather than including all classes that a page might need in every page load. It's pretty neato!
«1

Comments

  • Options
    MarkMark Vanilla Staff
    edited August 2005
    ... bug!
  • Options
    lechlech Chicagoland ✭
    edited August 2005
    ... found a nice bug
  • Options
    jonezyjonezy New
    so is that some of the .net reflection type stuff we talked about? i think that is a pretty major speed increase... it should be really noticiable on some of the bigger installs!
  • Options
    MarkMark Vanilla Staff
    Yeah, jonezy - that's pretty much it exactly.
  • Options
    jonezyjonezy New
    so basically the software is now super fantasic awesome plus?
  • Options
    MarkMark Vanilla Staff
    hehe - getting there...
  • Options
    MarkMark Vanilla Staff
    Okay, I've been working on the styles and templating all day. I think I'll officially have to change the name from a "style" to a "theme", because dammit - this rocks. It's now way more than just a css definition.

    Here is a screen grab of a style I've been able to develop with the theming system:

    image

    That may look familiar to a few of you :)
  • Options
    MarkMark Vanilla Staff
    Oh, and I'm calling that new theme "Mini Vanilli"
  • Options
    jesusphreakjesusphreak
    Defitely looks and sounds good, Mark. Great work as always.
  • Options
    nathannathan
    That may look familiar to a few of you :)

    Who is testing this? Show of hands please.

    *gimmi gimmi gimmi. I want to test too*
  • Options
    MinisweeperMinisweeper New
    familiar? you what? it looks nothing like anything i've ever seen before. except the greatest board on the '.net i'm glad you're naming it after me though.
  • Options
    lechlech Chicagoland ✭
    Oh shit man, it's o8 in a new pair of pants!
  • Options
    413x413x
    edited August 2005

    "Mini Vanilli"

    Is this a wordplay on the old popgroup Milli Vanilli"? ;)

    btw: the theme look nice & promising!

  • Options
    nathannathan
    edited August 2005
    ah. I thought it had been released for the developers or something. everyone disregard my previous post (unless I have stubled upon a conspiracy, in which case, I want in!) I was not around for o8, so I did not recognise it. It looks very nice though.
  • Options
    FLCFLC New
    I thought that was one river you werent going to cross Mark, that said, it looks hottz0rz!
  • Options
    unfortunateunfortunate

    That theme is dead sexy. Are we going to have to change current styles to use them with the next release?

  • Options
    lechlech Chicagoland ✭
    if this is going to work like I think it will, we could possibly be redefining the entire stylesheet as we know it. Meaning, we could define our own styles and simply call in the namespace for the element filling that style. For example, moving all the navigation tabs into the sidebar area and using either that same style, or defining our own.
  • Options
    techytechy
    Eventhough it looks good, I wouldn´t go for the classic frame style. I´ve always liked Vanilla for being different to all others, with its clear (google like) lay out. Good job anyway
  • Options
    lechlech Chicagoland ✭
    Techy, themes or styles via templates wouldn't break anything. In fact, it would only add to it. for example, this would allow you the admin to define what elements to display, and which to hide on your forum. From the screen shot that mark posted, it appears that either there are items hidden via css, otherwise, not present in the template. If it's rendered how I think it is (the later, via template) this is a bonus. However, the only drawback to this is that one set of CSS style(s) cannot be applied to the same template "frame" as each would be defined for that theme and that theme alone. Unless there was a common template "frame" being used for both. So while there's many benefits, there's only a very few number of drawbacks to this. So I'm all for it if I can move around the underlying xhtml code being spat out :D Another major benefit is being able to literally save some processing time to display pages due to the fact that you might only be calling one or two database items out of a dozen total, so that's also a plus if you don't need all that data.
  • Options
    techytechy
    Understood, Lech! Thanks for your explanations
This discussion has been closed.