Register or log in to explore all our content and services for free on Admin Junkies.
I'm the same. At this point I wouldn't bother upgrading to 2.3. Really hoping there's more groundbreaking updates coming, but so far, I'm quite disappointed in them. Maybe I'm reflecting too much with Invision, but still, given the time XF has had so far, the development is a letdown.STILL have not seen anything that is earth-shattering on the end user aspect. Once more, XenForo developers have simply re-enforced my position that they are more into the "developer" (as from 3rd party extensions) of their script than functions that will benefit the every day end user.
I don't care how big of a big "rah-rah" supporter of XF that you are... you will have a hard time defending how they have <not> extended their script, (after 3 friggin years), to benefit the actual end users of the script (the actual members). They offer NO important advances.
I really don't think so.. I personally think they sat on their laurels (in other words, their asses) thinking they were the "best thing ever" and it's finally coming back to bite them in the arse. At one point, they were the script to target... but they started getting WAY to involved in what benefited developers that could extend their script (when THEY should have been the ones extending it).... and now their resting on their laurels are biting them in it (in other words, biting them in the ass).Maybe I'm reflecting too much with Invision, but still, given the time XF has had so far, the development is a letdown.
Still avoids the point of working to make it easier on the end user. Frequently they are already members of other sites they want to be and couldn't give a crap about what the administrator of a site thinks they should be able to join up to.forum network is actually a powerful idea, though I realise you think it unimportant because it doesn’t benefit you.
All the take-away from this is 'don't bother implementing the single most requested suggestion because users don't want it'.(even when suggestions have been made)
Yeah, webhooks only 1/2 way implemented... issues with the SSO choices they made (when compared to what was suggested). Once more, back to the "we give them the stub, let other developers extend it".All the take-away from this is 'don't bother implementing the single most requested suggestion because users don't want it'.
I just read the blog post, I have no idea what half you think is missing, but that would assume you actually understand the problem being solved here.Yeah, webhooks only 1/2 way implemented
Bidirectional... they are aware of the issue but not concerned about it. I figured you would have caught that fairly quickly. A limited implementation that they have been called out on even by some fairly prolific XF developers. In fact, I think they even admitted it was only 1/2 way implemented ultimately.I just read the blog post, I have no idea what half you think is missing, but that would assume you actually understand the problem being solved here.
Sorry to burst your bubble... but they have admitted that they did not fully think out that process... and have been called out on it by long time XF developers with a LOT more experience coding for XF than you have.They already have one, that's literally what the API is. It's an incoming API which is 'you do a thing based on an event'. There's a semantic difference on some level (i.e. it's not called a webhook) but that's what it amounts to: a thing you call, with some proof of you being authorised to do so, with a specifically structured request (because every webhook accepter has a specific format) and something will happen.
I figured you would have understood that but you have an axe to grind.
Thank you for emphasizing my point... it should NOT be half-assed in implementation. If you are going to do something, take the time to do it "right".nd they're *all* just as wonderfully engineered as XF is describing: i.e. what you're calling half-assed. They're all like that. The bigger they are the worse they are.
If you are going to push the "status quo" as being what is acceptable, then no, we don't have anything to discuss. I prefer to think that with the past history of XenForo, they would prefer to do something "right" than "half-assed".... but reality is starting to show that they are not any different than most other companies.... look for the quick easy way out and then say "see, we gave you this", even if it's not a fully thought out integrated solution and you have to jake-leg solutions to work.As usual you're not interested in having an actual discussion, you'd made up your mind long before coming here, and it's not like I have any hat in the ring either way.
Grass is always greener. You're getting quite worked up. If you want to switch switch.IPS and Wotlab both are bringing more to the table for end users than XenForo has in the past several years.
He won't do that because a) there's no 'forever' option for self hosting on IPS and b) he'll complain about choices IPS made a decade or more ago as why IPS can *never* be trusted, mostly because Tracy's definition of 'lifetime licence' doesn't match for 'lifetime of the product'Grass is always greener. You're getting quite worked up. If you want to switch switch.
The point actually is I DON'T want to swtich, but I would like to see some end user benefits like enhanced discovery, being able to search fields/data points that are already collected and similar stuff worked on instead of a few big (and most likely not widely used) things being implemented. I laugh at a lot of the folks... they tell you to "shut up and sit at the back of the bus, we don't want to hear your input/suggestions", yet the very thing they are creaming their britches about are from those folks that spoke loudly in support of something that they may have had interest in. There's a phrase for folks like that.You're getting quite worked up. If you want to switch switch.
Incorrect... all you know for SURE is you will get it for 2 years.... you MAY get it for longer, but there is no written guarantee of that. What you DO know is they have already TOLD you that standalone is on it's last breath. And they have strongly indicated version 5.x will be the last of it. Realistically you may get upwards of 4 years... but the decade that certain partaies claimed are a (pardon the pun) pipe fantasy. Why should I spend a lot of time (and money) investing in IPS on a site that most likely will not be able to be self-hosted in 2-5 years (more likely the lower end of the scale) when I KNOW that the standalone script is on it's knees with its head on the chopping block?there's no 'forever' option for self hosting on IPS and
Log in or register to unlock full forum benefits!