ober
-
Posts
5,327 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by ober
-
-
I never use them. It's closed automatically for you at the end of script execution, so why bother?
-
I have moved this thread to PHP Help.
The only reason that error occurs is if you have something wrong with your query. I suggest you run the query directly against the MySQL database (phpmyadmin or any of the MySQL tools) to see if it returns valid results. Also make sure that your connection works properly.
Also keep in mind that "date" is a very poor choice for a column name since it is a function name in PHP and is a datatype in many systems. "number" is also a relatively poor choice. -
I'm with Mark on this one. I have waaaaaaay to many resources to fit on a handheld and be useful. If I did anything like that I'd probably keep it all on my webserver and access it from there. But I just have a stash on my work PC and on my home PC. I try to keep both as syncronized as I can.
-
The difference is almost negligable.
mysql_functionname go to mssql_functionname
You can't use some of the specific MySQL options (LIMIT being the big one)
I use both and it's never really a problem for me. If you run into any problems or have a question about something specific, post it here or PM me. -
Yes, but you don't use move_uploaded_file() with the FTP functions. Look up FTP on php.net
-
I would suggest that you run the db_connect.php file on it's own and see if you get any errors. Usually failure after an include or a require is a direct result with the file you're trying to include/require.... which is what Orio was trying to say.
-
Use the mktime() function.
-
You can't use the HTTP Referrer with a JS popup because no headers are sent if you create the window purely through JS.
All you have to do is send the URL as an argument to the JS function. -
As long as the space is within the text you're sending it, you can use the trim() function. If you want to accept things that contain text + spaces, but you want to avoid 0 length items, you can use strlen().
-
No. move_uploaded_file() is a local function only. Can you imagine the security risk if I could pluck random files off of your website and move them to mine??
-
The best way to handle this would be to use AJAX to fill the spot on your page. While you're waiting for the operation to complete, you can fill the space with some kind of animated gif.
If you're unsure of how to apply AJAX, I suggest you check out our sister freaks site: [a href=\"http://www.ajaxfreaks.com\" target=\"_blank\"]http://www.ajaxfreaks.com[/a] -
Are the PHP versions the same?
-
Sounds like a server config issue. Does the software work on another server?
-
You will have to read the file into a string, write your new output to the file and then write your old string back to the end of the file. There's no function to do this otherwise.
-
I think you mis-read me. I don't have a problem with someone that wants to create an object that applies to layout and chunks of code that you're going to use and re-use over and over again with only slight tweaks from site to site. However, I'm getting the impression that people think all the little functions they use "sometimes" should be wrapped up in one giant box of crap and tossed into a class as a kind of code toolbox. I don't think that's the best approach.
-
Sounds like a load of bullshit to me. Sure OOP is nice for the right application, but not all applications warrent the use of it. I would be willing to wager that 90% of the people on this forum will never have a use for OOP. Why over-complicate things when it's unnecessary? Why should I create a class to get a random quote? Why should I create a class to figure out what day of the week it is? Those things can be done with very few lines of code and don't require an OOP approach, and they're used ALL THE TIME.
It's my opinion that some people just think they're smart because they know how to use advanced techniques. Sometimes the situation doesn't require such overhead, and you're only increasing the processing time on the backend which leads to slower response times to the user.
KISS - Keep It Simple Stupid
I say screw the supposed "proper way". Do what you require, comment it, and keep it bug free. As long as it's efficient and you can use it over and over, why cloud up your apps with overhead and garbage you're not going to use? -
As far as the video, I'd be concerned about copyright issues before I worry about the quality of the production. I'm pretty sure it's safe to assume that you didn't do the animation. I'm also pretty sure that using images captured from Google Earth probably isn't a good idea. And that's about as far as I got before I stopped watching. It's very long and doesn't really seem like a great idea, IMO.
The site itself is another thing entirely. Your content is scattered and doesn't appear to have a specific flow. Your background image is grainy and has a very "stretched" feeling to it. The main problem I see is that everything is very basic. You don't pad your areas properly, your text is very simple and sometimes bolded when it shouldn't be and you don't even seem to use the same font throughout the site. The nav is also very boring and there is no hover effect.
As far as forums, check out [a href=\"http://www.simplemachines.org\" target=\"_blank\"]http://www.simplemachines.org[/a] . -
I'm personally against using templates created by any program, specifically Dreamweaver. I think that you'll find that things like that rarely pass standards and are usually buggy and quickly become outdated. I personally use some classes as templates, but I wrote them myself and I maintain them.
Having said all that, I've been hearing a lot about this "MVC" stuff lately and I honestly don't have a damn clue what it's about. Anyone care to enlighten me before I run off and do a bunch of research? -
It might freeze up if it's looking for pics and you start to try and use it. I've been very impressed with it, especially for a free tool.
-
For those of you who haven't found this yet, or haven't used it since Google bought it, you really need to check this out:
[a href=\"http://picasa.google.com/\" target=\"_blank\"]Picasa[/a]
Warning: it has an "auto-find" feature that will turn up damn near every picture and "movie" you might have laying around on your computer. I suggest not opening it in front of others if you have *ahem* questionable material on your PC.
EDIT: My only complaint is that resizing the pic requires exporting the image... there is no "live" resizing capability. -
For the layout, I don't personally know many applications with much on the left/right sides. Most apps have a top-down approach with most of your tools located along the top. If anything, the left side should be nothing more than a "toolbox".
From a usage approach, the fastest switch would be hidden divs... but be prepared to throw in a fair amount of AJAX for some of the other calls. Also keep in mind that your app completely breaks using either of those approaches if the user has JS disabled. Probably not anything to be too concerned about, but it's worth some thought.
I personally don't think it's necessary to provide something like this. The web is what it is and people that expect the speed of a website to match that of a desktop app don't understand the technology.
However, having said that, I've thought about something recently that may or may not help you. One of the main problems with an application like that is getting real-time data without some sort of refresh. But what if you fired an event in the background that was based on a timer or whatever that did nothing but update the hidden divs. That way you could swap them out at will and they'd always have accurate data. You could easily check to see which ones are hidden and which ones aren't and only update the ones that need to be changed. It could get very complicated, but could come close to what you're after.
I don't know if that's just my ramblings that'll confuse you or if any of that will help, but good luck with it. -
Well, at least the URL is fitting.
1) Your content has no padding. It's all smushed up to the edges.
2) The top part (under the banner image) is COMPLETELY random as far as how stuff is laid out.
3) The nav is boring as hell. How bout a hover or rollover effect of ANY kind?
4) Tables for layout... imagine that! Shame on you.
5) The shoutbox sucks... it's hard to read and again... with the no padding... ehh.
6) Your forums are a little boring... the integration into the main site is ok, but the styling is rather lacking.
By the way, are you the only user of the site? Because that's what it seems like. I find it hard to believe that you actually have that many members. Something tells me you have altered the DB. -
Interesting theory.... but something tells me it's not really going to take off. I don't want to click on a random image when I don't know where it's going to take me. What if someone submits a NSFW site and I click on it at work? BAD IDEA.
The site design itself is ok... but the concept fails me. -
1) Make it look like a fish site. When I get to the site, I don't expect it to be about fish. I should see water, I should see live fish (in pics, of course), I should see anything but a cheesy, mid-90ish style banner image.
2) Try and match up your colors. Your header is a fairly bright blue... your box headers are darker blue and your footer is yet ANOTHER blue. And then you have a TON of white space. I'd kill the whitespace in the background of the site (the non-text areas), I'd put another color behind the nav, and I'd try to match up the other areas a little better.
3) [b]WHY IS ALL YOUR TEXT BOLD[/b]? That has to be the most annoying approach/mistake I see webmasters make. Your text doesn't need to be bold to be readable. If you can't read it, increase the font size slightly... don't BOLD ALL YOUR TEXT. Bolding the main text loses the distinction between the nav and the content.
4) Do something more with the nav. Seperate each link with lines, make the hover more powerful (change background color, do something tricky with borders, or hell... even make the color change more drastic).
5) Does the site need to be full-width? Something tells me it doesn't. I think there are very few sites that require a full-width site and this is not one of them. Personally, I think the only reason a site should be full-width is if it has enough content to fill it. You don't.
6) Contact page: if I screw up, show me the form again WITH the error messages. Don't just show me the error messages and then make me hit the back button. And show me which fields are required.
7) Guestbook: WHY? No one uses these anymore and it looks rather unprofessional, IMO. Remove it.
8) Rigs/Tackle: get some better images. Those are so blurry and boring, it makes your site look unprofessional.
9) No surprise... it fails validation miserably. And on top of that, you're using tables for layout. For shame.
10) Link your CSS. Don't include it in each page. That does 2 things: a) it keeps your CSS in one place so you only have to edit it once to have the changes show up everywhere and b) it doesn't clutter your source pages.
Web Forms 2.0
in Miscellaneous
Posted
Awesome demo. I've been hearing a lot about this, and I'm curious about what you need to run it. It's built for IE, but I think it should work in FF and the beta release of Opera 9 (put out in the past few days) supports it as well.
Is anyone using this stuff? It's extremely powerful and makes forms SOOO much easier!
Oh, and it seems that Opera's support for the validation part is much more detailed than IE's. SWEET.
HAHAHAHA... when you open it in FF, you get this at the top:
[!--quoteo--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--quotec--]If you were using Internet Explorer 6 on a Windows machine or Opera 9, this demo would actually work![/quote]