redbullmarky

so what needs beta testing? is gabbly.com your own site? or shall I just go ahead and move this thread to the correct place? C'mon Ted, you've been around here long enough to know your way around...

yeah. the "changes" are more additions than proper changes, so PHP4 scripts tend to fall under two categories: a) works fine or b) needs a couple of adjustments to work fine. there are some things that PHP5 just "breaks" by default (like register_globals, etc) that will just send certain PHP4 sites tits up - but they shouldnt have been written with support for register_globals being on in the first place (or at least should have been changed), same with other bits that have LONG been advised, even much before PHP5 was even introduced. But you're probably right when you say: At one time, I remember when it was advisable to turn Javascript/cookies, etc off in your browser and live a nice happy comfortable surfing life - but nowadays, all that's changing because of the "introduction" of things like AJAX/DHTML and libs such as Mootools/Script.aculo.us, etc to the mainstream as simpler, lightweight, dare i say easier alternatives to Flash. I guess it takes time, but it also takes a large movement of people to say "sod it, we need to move forward and if people wanna drag their feet, then let them" Oh well. Personally though, I only had these worries about PHP4/5 when I was on a regular hosting platform, but now I tend to prefer VPS/dedicated server where I can install the necessary bits and pieces if I wish - and for clients, I can either host their site for them or advise of decent hosts that support PHP5 at least as an option.

can you provide a test account username/password for those of us that are happy to test but not register...

i've recently decided to make the move completely to PHP5 after toying with it in parts for ages. Much of the stuff most useful for me is stuff I used to have to simulate or tweak on PHP4 anyway, so it saves me alot of work in that respect - but the additional OOP features have really made it easier for me to stay on top of large projects and frameworks. I just can't understand even now why hosting company support is so rubbish for PHP5 when it's so much better and much faster. Oh well.

ahh. thanks for the bump - it prompted me of a story I saw recently: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hereford/worcs/6565079.stm it says that it's the first case of its kind, but shouldnt be long before i guess it's a bit more widespread. it's only when you get into the consequences of letting someone piggyback your network that you realise ALL the reasons why you should lock it down...

not here. personally, i find 123-reg the absolute best for domain names. however, the company (pipex) itself can be a bit confusing, as i think 123-reg also offer hosting, but the main hosting arm of pipex is webfusion. what I always do - get my domain names from 123-reg (cheap and gives 100% control over DNS, etc and easy to transfer to clients, etc) and get my hosting from http://www.webfusion.co.uk - they're all pretty much in the same boat and compatible. Support is 24x7 so not sure why you're having probs getting through, but by all means try via webfusion site instead. Tis all the same company. You're lucky you werent with webfusion several months ago, else support would have been via a premium rate number... It depends on your needs for the domains, but either way - check out the webfusion site for your hosting.

ok - so did you or did you not correct the points i pointed out to you? and are you still getting errors? and you've still not said what errors are being displayed...

*bump*

first off, your 'methods' in your dbConnection class dont have the prepended 'function': <?php class dbConnection{ var $message; function dbConnecton(){ $db = "my_table"; $host = "my_host"; $user = "user_name"; $pass = "password"; mysql_connect($host, $user, $pass) or die("Unable to connect to host $host"); mysql_select_db($db) or die( "Unable to select database $db"); } function dbResult($query){ $result = mysql_query ($query) or die (mysql_error()); return $result; } function dbClose(){ mysql_close(); } } ?> but as MadTechie states - explain the problem - don't just post code and assume we'll dig through the whole thing looking for bugs and errors for you. Give us all the information YOU have... "It doesn't work" is not information

you have far too much whitespace in your header, and the logo could be smaller. considering the focus of these pixel ad sites is the pixels, i doubt your clients will be happy that half the page is taken up by your logo - they pay for the exposure, after all.

I work on both the PC and the Mac depending on where i'm working, so I use DW - but after toying with textmate, I must say I'll probably jump ship once there's a PC version or a good enough equivalent. I LOVE the functionality you get out of just the tab key when creating functions/classes and when you do quotes, the closing quote gets written automatically with the cursor jumping right in the middle...

Hello all from the PHP manual, one user comment states: my question - is it possible to override this behaviour in any way so that ALL method calls can be filtered, be it using __call or otherwise? I'm trying to trim out all the crap from my framework so it'd be nice to be able to see what methods never get used at all so I can better decide whether to keep them or get rid without breaking sites that currently run on it. Sure, I could write "new" versions where and how I want them and leave the old ones where they are for now, but I've got further plans - I'm working on something that (thanks to a bit of help from prozente here) will actually pull not only the required files from the framework and get them ready for distribution, but will also recreate these files with ONLY the required functions for that site. In testing on a small scale, this is working very well but if I can just filter all method calls, that'd be great. Any thoughts? Cheers

it might not help your cause a great deal, but take a look anyway: http://www.phpfreaks.com/forums/index.php/topic,96282.0.html (sometimes knowing how to say it will help you figure out what it's for) nikkieijpen, $a->$b would reference the variable in object $a that has the name of the value of $b, rather than $b itself. $b = 'dog'; $a->$b is then pretty much the equivalent of writing $a->dog to reference the variable $b that belongs in object $a, you need $a->b . using $this is a way of referencing a function/variable from within the object itself.

great stuff, i'll take a look. cheers! Mark

to start, you'd need to adjust the query. Here's an example (but advisable not to just copy/paste to your script as it does no checks for valid input): <?php // human page number starts from 1. offset page starts from 0, so // subtract one from requested page if ($_GET['page']) { $page = $_GET['page'] - 1; } else { $page = 0; } // what record to start from...result will be 0,10,20,30, etc // simply multiply page by number per page $offset = $page * 10; $getnews = mysql_query("select * from news ORDER BY id DESC LIMIT $offset, 10"); ?> you could do worse than hunting down a tutorial on 'pagination' - there are plenty around and each has different ways of achieving the same result, but the above should start you off. cheers

get_included_files() definitely does the trick in one respect - odd i'd never come across that before, so thanks - thats great! debug_backtrace / debug_print_backtrace seem to only show a couple or three "steps" - ideally i'm looking at something with the ability of tracking every function call through the whole start to finish, if indeed that's possible. anyways - cheers for the help!

steviez, your other post regarding the same site was about 0.005mm down the page, not on a different planet (or page, even) that warranted a new topic - please do not double post... Topics merged. Your banner "area" is too big and pushes the content too far down the page on my 1024x768. That'd be ok if there wasn't so much whitespace in the banner area, but there is - that can be drastically shrunk to bring everything up into view abit. Cheers

Hi all This may not be much a design issue, but might be something more suitable for the local crowd to answer... Recently, I've developed a nice framework, but as many of the functions/classes/methods are recycled from old stuff, alot of it is kinda rusty, deprecated, etc and I wish to get rid. Also, each time I package up the files of a new site (built on the framework) for a client, I don't need to include files that are completely unused - and don't necessarily wanna go through the whole thing picking out what I have/havent used, either I currently have one main installation of my framework which happily drives about 4 sites (plus God knows how many development sites ontop of that, but that's a different story...) What I wanna do is determine if there's a way (ideally without code, but open to suggestions) to: a) determine what files PHP is including during a complete site run (obviously this will differ page to page, but if there's a report I can get, I can handle the rest) b) determine ALL functions/methods that PHP is calling so I can easily trace and get rid of the old junk ones I don't use without breaking anything in other sites. If PHP is able to tell me the answer to "a" above, then I could easily write something that would pull all the relevent framework files together when it comes to packaging it all up, so removing the need to include my entire framework. I don't mind getting down and dirty with something lower level than PHP if it's the only way to go, but if there is anything I'm missing or any tools I could be using, please share Cheers Mark

The age old argument used by companies and bitter consumers, "people getting free software just raises the price for everyone else" kinda gets dashed out the water considering there's such a strong open source community. I sit on the fence - both with my opinions and my actions and don't promote either way of obtaining commercial software. When you buy Macromedia Studio MX, then out of the blue (unless you go fishing) just a week or two later they release a brand new version for pretty much the same price and expect a huge upgrade fee, it's really not a hard choice, and the morals are dished out both ways. Call it getting even, if you wish. However, in 99.9% of cases, there's an open source solution just waiting there for me, and as some will possibly know, I have NO issues donating money off my own bat for something I find incredibly useful. Even if it's only a couple of ££, it all helps and shows appreciation. If someone wants to download commercial software for free, it really isnt my job to criticise or voice my morals. My weapon of choice for graphics is Fireworks MX - I find it easy enough to use, but incredibly powerful. I only do pretty simple stuff anyway - logos, gradients, dropshadows, etc - most of my sites are CSS/colour styled to make up for the fact that I am artistically retarded. I hope this doesnt start a "stealing software is like stealing a car" type argument, as each and every time i've seen one, all of those on their moral perch can be exposed in some area or another, no matter how big or small. They're about as fake as the majority who claim to do all their coding in Windows' standard Notepad and design/graphics in Paint.

3 or 4, but my preference being 3. the F in the monitor on 2 just looks too much like the obvious thing to do - and whilst it looks good, the others aren't trying anything clever - straightforward and to the point.

Definitely the lightbox - just because its much tidier and modern, opens up much quicker and just keeps things nice and self-contained within the site itself. Popups in traditional sense still require JS anyway, but cause issues with many popup blocks and can be quite slow to open. Their plus point I guess is the amount of code required to get it working is very minimal in comparison. In either case, I'd use a href with a target="_blank" just for those who have JS turned off. Out of interest, what are your negatives about the lightbox option?

PHPBB uses a template engine of its own, which essentially means that all of the main forum code is kept seperate from the files that are essentially the HTML. If you look in a template directory at some of the files, you probably wont see any php at all. The {SITE_NAME} example just means that where the variable $site_name (or something like that) has been set, replace all instances of {SITE_NAME} with the contents of the variable. The idea is that it allows designers to create templates/skins without breaking the actual code, and is allegedly less intimidating to use {SITE_NAME} rather than <?=$site_name ?> or <?php echo $site_name ?> Smarty is a template engine that uses these types of tokens, if you wish to go down that road. Personally I chose the method laid out here: http://www.massassi.com/php/articles/template_engines/ which essentially does the same thing - ie, seperates business logic from presentation logic, but not forgetting that you dont need an entire new syntax to do it... The short answer to your question: Templating/Template Engines. Hope it helps! Cheers

pun intended?

an original idea. Whilst $151,600 isn't a bad sum, the fact that the original "inventor" Alex Tew is kinda limping at the moment (call it scraping the barrel if you want) kinda suggests that pixel ads "as is" is dying out. The first one was "quirky" and quite interpersonal - it had a blog, latest news, etc and it had a proper "story" behind it - yet the second one he did, as with all the copycat sites, just came across like people trying to take advantage and jump on the bandwagon, which people don't really appreciate. as for how it looks: - the blue background hurts my eyes - the banner itself has too much space either side of the logo - generally a better colour scheme other than harsh blue and green - something other than comic sans... otherwise, it's generally hard to judge these type of sites considering they're just about throwing as much random junk into one area as possible. sorry dude, but no thumbs up from me.