[ear1grey]

The symlink would mean old URI’s would still work, but any new URI’s generated (on every new page) would point to the preferred address.

I think it’s maybe also worth adding this to robots.txt a:

User-agent: *

Disallow: /your-old-folder

So that any robots that discover one of the older URLs don’t go indexing what they might consider as duplicate pages.

Longer term you could also add a 301 redirect to htaccess to ensure any links to the old content have rank properly attributed to the new location… but this is probably getting waaay too complex if it’s a new installation.

Another alternative, of course, is to just rename the folder and change your config.php – it’s more maverick than the symlink approach, but if your forum is new and has no fully qualified self referencing links contained within, then it’s not much of a wrench to just move the whole kaboodle.

[ear1grey]

I think the easiest (& most stable) solution is to use a symlink such as ln -s /path/to/bbpress newname in the folder where you want the new forum to appear (probably at the top level of your server).

Then, once that’s running, open your config.php and change $bb->path = '/newname/';

I think that’s all, and you have the advantage of being able to get the symlink working before asking bbpress to use the new path when creating links.

Anyone see any gotchas with that?

[ear1grey]

If it’s not integrated (my wp+bb isn’t) then this plugin will probably work for you.

It does a little URL processing to work out what is being linked and based on that will return the number of topics matching a tag, the number of topics in a forum or the number of comments in a particular topic.

[ear1grey]

To redirect users to a forum (e.g. see the bottom of this article), I wrote a tiny plugin called bbpress-instead.

I’m going to add a count capability now (for example purposes), so since it’s GPL (natch) feel free to embrace and extend

[ear1grey]

Have you tried temporarily putting the limit up to 99999 minutes?

[ear1grey]

You’ll have noticed that there’s no “topic” subdirectory inside your “forums” directory, so what I think you’re asking is “is bbPress really serving a page that doesn’t physically exist on my hard drive?”

The answer is yes, bbPress generates the page on the fly, so there is no stored page that has the content of that URL.

Apache’s MultiViews option makes this happen because the server tries to find the best match to your URL. It looks first for forums and finds it, so then it looks for topic in forums, which doesn’t exist, so it tries the next best thing, which is to look for an index of some kind, and it finds the bbPress index.php.

When bbPress runs (through index.php) it still sees the originally requested url, so the fact that it’s a request for topic/242 is spotted by the code – it’s a simple as stripping the integer value from the string and using that as the primary key for the database lookup.

Briefly, the sequence is that index.php loads bb-load.php, bb-load.php loads your config.php, which specifies where your DB is (so the content can be generated), config.php then loads bb-settings.php which is where most of the core request-processing is done.

At least… that’s what I got from looking through the code A core dev. might be able to describe it better.

[ear1grey]

Something similar here… and here… so any plugins installed?

[ear1grey]

Previous solution to a similar problem: https://bbpress.org/forums/topic/182

[ear1grey]

There are tickets that will affect some parts of the template system, but nothing massive.

[ear1grey]

Great, thanks lstelie – I’ll fix that up and release it as version 0.6.

[ear1grey]

gnawph wrote:

The bbPress designers would look foolish changing all of their IDs to Classes and wouldn’t conform.

I’ve already stated that: “I’m not advocating the removal of any of the ID’s from templates”. I am, however, conscious that the reliance on ID based formatting in the default template is more likely to run in to integration problems in the long run.

“Latest and Popular are different tables and shouldn’t be labeled the same”.

Yes, latest and popular are different tables (their ids are different), but they are both examples of a certain kinds of table that show an ordered selection of items based on some kind of score (be it date or rating). So it’s better to define what that kind of table is, so use a class.

“If code redundancy is an issue you could always go:#latest, #popular {“

Yes, this does have a similar effect, but, if I’m writing a plugin with UI elements then for it’s output to be shown correctly in TemplateX, either:

1. I have to add CSS to the plugin which might work with TemplateX, but be incompatible with TemplateY, or
2. The authors of X&Y must alter their css to cope with my plugin.

This potential hassle just becomes less likely if template designers take an extra few minutes to consider what the more abstract classes in the design should be!

BTW: class="tableonmainpage" might be better described as .mainpage > table {}

[ear1grey]

That’s part of it yes…

…but also, using ID based formatting can cause trouble down the line when users want to add more elements to the page and find they have to change the CSS rather than just saying that their new addition <thing id='latest' />; should be formatted in the same way as <thing id="popular" />; because they’re both the same kind of table.

This is a double pain because CSS seems to get stuck in some browser caches so users see the new page with the old CSS.

The shift from “how do I want this to look?” to “what kind of thing is this and what do those things look like?” is (I have found) worthwhile.

[ear1grey]

A small question, your XML shows plugin version 0.51, but I only have obvious records of versions <= 0.5, so if you’ve made changes/improvements please describe them here since it may help work out what’s up!

In the mean time, try 0.6rc1 .

The “debug hook” is enabled so you can force it to regenerate the sitemap by adding something to your favorites list.

[ear1grey]

Well done, external bug #1. I have mod_rewrite enabled, and it works – you appear to have it switched off, so you’ve found something I’ve not seen.

I’ll try a build that escapes the loc and put it on the site shortly.

[ear1grey]

Using anchors for navigation (“jump links”) is a good thing, I agree. I’m not advocating the removal of any of the ID’s from templates. The fact that so many WP and BB elements are identified in the DOM is a good thing – for one thing it makes the identification of objects easier in JavaScript.

It’s just that ID based styles are not as extensible as class based styles – ID styles let you describe the style for one and only one element. Class styles let you describe the style for one or more elements that declare they are of that type.

[ear1grey]

This should work as described, but… firefox 2 has a major failing with SVG at the moment: it can’t be used in an img tag for content negotiation… so there would have to be some browser recognition and hocus-pocus coding to get it to work.

still, it all helps bring about an end to the use of px in css, so as you suggest, lets rock.

http://boakes.org/images/star2.svg

<?xml version="1.0" standalone="no"?>

<!DOCTYPE svg PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD SVG 1.1//EN"

"http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/1.1/DTD/svg11.dtd">

<svg width="10cm" height="10cm" viewBox="0 0 270 240"

xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" version="1.1">

<desc>bbPress inverted star by ear1grey - GPL</desc>

<g fill-rule="evenodd" stroke="#2e6e15" fill="#888888" stroke-width="3" >

<path d="M 135,000 L 164,086 254,086 182,130

208,226 135,175 062,226 088,130

016,086 106,086 135,000

M 0,-15 L 0,240 270,240 270,-15 0,-15 z" />

</g>

</svg>

[ear1grey]

Thinking aloud…

if delete doesn’t actually delete, then if any companies are considering using bbPress then there may be issues with data protection legislation such as the Data Protection Act in the UK.

My understanding is that for a company to comply with the act it must be possible, if necessary, to remove all personal information, so it would be necessary for the delete function to blank out all the personal details as well as setting a deleted flag, if the user record was to remain in the DB.

[ear1grey]

mdawaffe wrote:

As an aside, that site will soon open up to anyone wanting to host the plugins they write.

I’ll pop the Google Sitemaps plugin in for a start.

[ear1grey]

I assume ergate means this: https://bbpress.org/plugins/

[ear1grey]

So, what you’re asking is for the tag-could to be re-ordered, based on a tag’s popularity rather than its alphabetic position?

[ear1grey]

Personally I’d be wary of hosting anonymous posts, due to the guaranteed spam-tidal-wave that would eventually arrive, but I know people who share your justified lazyness regarding the frighteningly bureaucratic “registering”.

See also: Combined Register + Post, which might describe a happy middle ground.

[ear1grey]

I can’t say how it’s s’posed to work, but I have “Member” users that have created topics quite successfully, so this sounds like a misconfiguration issue.

You might find posting the URL would elicit some feedback when folk get a chance to visit, register and look.

[ear1grey]

BTW I’ve checked the validity of the map for my site with Google, and they say it’s ok. They’re also reporting that the map defines the correct number of pages.

[ear1grey]

I have a fairly simplistic one operating on my site. You’re welcome to have a go.

Its just out of the oven, so please be aware that it might be hot to the touch and remember to feedback any problems, ideas and patches

http://boakes.org/talk/tags/bbpress-sitemap

[ear1grey]

Ah, found it. You gotta edit the first post.