108 replies to this topic

[Harald Ponce de Leon]

Hi All..

Feedback for the OSCOM v3.0 Framework Optimized For PHP v5.3 blog entry can be posted in this topic.

Thanks, we look forward to receiving your feedback!

Edited by Harald Ponce de Leon, 19 May 2010 - 10:12 PM.

[steptoe675]

Harald Ponce de Leon, on 19 May 2010 - 10:03 PM, said:

Hi All..

Feedback for the OSCOM v3.0 Framework Optimized For PHP v5.3 blog entry can be posted in this topic.

Thanks, we look forward to receiving your feedback!

Hi Harald
   Thanks for all the hard work you are doing to bring us v3

I am just wondering how much longer we will have to wait with all these changes happening is there actually ever going to be a stable v3

[toyicebear]

Sounds like a plan  

[burt]

5.3 is definitely the way to go as a minimum.

Would like to see more transparency from all the Team - maybe a once weekly blog post on what's been done, what new ideas have arisen and so on.

[Harald Ponce de Leon]

Hi All..

We'll publish a public schedule as soon as v3.0 is ready for release. Until then, we are busy each and every day working on it.

The announcement just made is just the start to publishing further entries on our blogs regarding the progress and new framework features of v3.0.

Stay tuned! :-)

Kind regards,

[bruyndoncx]

what does the oscom optimizeation for php 5.3 contain ?
i'm just wondering how much work it is  and what the real gain is besides namespaces (modularity / flexibility if I understand it well)

[sammysumer]

Thank you very much Hpdl,

Without doubt osC 3.0 will be a killer framework.

But I am just worried if you keep refactoring and restructuring osC all the time, we may never see osC 3 be released at all. By the time you are ready to release osC 3.0, the PHP will be at version 6 or possibly 7.

Then a brilliant idea hits you and you start optimizing the framework for PHP7 and so on.

All the best

[Harald Ponce de Leon]

Hi Carine..

bruyndoncx, on 20 May 2010 - 06:23 PM, said:

what does the oscom optimizeation for php 5.3 contain ?
i'm just wondering how much work it is  and what the real gain is besides namespaces (modularity / flexibility if I understand it well)

That will be further explained in the upcoming blog entries.

Kind regards,

[Harald Ponce de Leon]

Hi Sammy..

sammysumer, on 21 May 2010 - 01:32 AM, said:

But I am just worried if you keep refactoring and restructuring osC all the time, we may never see osC 3 be released at all. By the time you are ready to release osC 3.0, the PHP will be at version 6 or possibly 7.

I know what you mean as there have been multiple "framework updates" throughout the development of v3.0. It will however be published as soon as the framework is stabilized with the PHP v5.3 optimizations.

We know that not everything we'd like to have in the v3.0 release will make it for the release, so we're aiming for a solid framework to build on with regular releases that introduce new features. We'll quickly push out v3.0.1, v3.02, .. releases as soon as new features are ready.

Kind regards,

[totalnumpty]

Harald

It's great to see osC 3 moving on apace, but like other posters, I'm concerned at the lack of availability of a stable release for 2.2

Right now I'm running all sites on 2.2 RC1 simply because that's what had (only just) been released when I started my first site, and that's the code base I built variants around with mods pre-added before install.  Whilst I love osC and enjoy the flexibility it delivers, it does become a pain to extend when a client (internal or external) asks for a LOT of additional functionality.  There are hundreds of contribs that can do the jobs required, but they all have to be hard-coded unless they are a payment or shipping module, and that brings it's own challenges as, for example, I posted in the Shipping Insurance mod page regarding PayPal's messing with shipping insurance options, which completely broke several sites for reasons beyond the control of you, contrib authors, clients, or myself.  The fix had to be hard-coded direct into core files, and had to be written from scratch first.  With pluggable contribs, that would have been a one-click upgrade from the contrib author or community.

Will osC 3 be bringing in plug and play modifications in the same style as WordPress or SMF forums etc?

I've heard all the arguments and had a few debates about why osC is not WP and so on, but I still maintain that the team are missing the point entirely - osC COULD have the same plug and play modular contribs and mods as the other packages, IF the hooks and pluggable points were available in the wireframe.  Absolutely, the first requirement for this is to make the templates, themes, and css as table-less as practicable, and to separate visual theme from operational coding by making far, far more extensive use of functions and classes, instead of every php file being choked with php, DB calls etc - those should all be in functions/classes, leading to the theme files containing only the layout and function-call coding.  

If this approach was taken, then contribs could also be function call driven, and able to drop in as plug and play with calls to action hooks and hook points embedded in the core code.  The contribs should have no need to modify the core code, they should be just registering their own function call in the appropriate sequence register.  Have any of the osC team looked at how WP and SMF do it?  It makes everything so simple, including extreme customising.

It is to my deepest regret that I don't have enough spare time to create a working model of this from a 2.2 RC1 build, to show that it is possible.  It feels at times that the team devs flatly refuse to believe it can be done, without trying it, yet many open source applications in many application sectors, are doing exactly this, including shopping carts.  

Reading your latest OSCOM 3 descriptions on the blog, particularly about the subsite-ing of major core units (admin, store, checkout, accounts etc) leaves me hopeful you will be driving for what I have described ... but I'd like to see a road map for it, otherwise I'll just have to keep delivering 2.2 RC1 based sites.

Gaz

[Harald Ponce de Leon]

Hi Gaz..

Please don't think v3.0 would be something like v2.3 or v2.4. As I wrote in my blog entry, there are worlds apart with v3.0 and v2.2.

I am sure v2.2 (and earlier releases) helped a lot of developers learn the PHP language - it was a great learning aid for its time. Again, for its time. The same will happen for v3.0 - a lot of developers will learn the more advanced features of PHP v5.3 and build great Add-Ons for the framework.

Kind regards,

[totalnumpty]

Thanks Harald

I did look at the structure on Github and it seems to be moving to a modular OOP structure.
However that still does not guide me as to whether it will have drop-in plug-in capability for contribs in the same way as other scripts.

I know there are arguments for why it cannot in the 2.2 stream (though again, that could have been sorted out programmatically).  Just as an example, several devs say that it's impossible to account for GST / VAT across plug-in contribs. MY thinking on that is quite simply "rubbish".  If GST / VAT calculation were itself a module with settings in admin, then it wouldn't matter in the slightest how many core or third party contribs were above it on the checkout final order total.  It's this sort of leap that is needed to make the script as flexible and development/customisation friendly as other scripts out there.

Don't get me wrong.  I cut my PHP / SQL teeth on osC too, but at times it was more like wrestling a bathtub of octopuses than website building.  There are now so many forks of osC / Cube / Zen and so many various hosted drag and drop customisable carts now, that osC needs to do something pretty radical for the non-programmer web admins or lose the mass market race.

Gaz

[Harald Ponce de Leon]

Hi Gaz..

It will be even more easier to install Add-Ons with the v3 framework, and will be further refined throughout the v3 series. At the current stage, it is possible to install new features (eg, modules, Sites and Applications, ..) without touching core source code.

There probably won't be an automatic Add-On installer for v3.0, but one will definitely appear in a future update. The capability is already there - a separation of framework and public directories, and (soon a proper) tracker for which Add-Ons are installed.

Kind regards,

[totalnumpty]

Thanks Harald - sounds good

I realise not everything can be done immediately (no matter how much we wish it could), but certainly having the "drop in" extensibility will be a massive boost to shortening site development and delivery time.

Look forward to it rolling

Gaz

[FlyingKites]

"This long journey has never been about adding new features into the core to stop at and to possibly include a kitchen sink, but a long journey of improving a procedural based codebase and striving for a perfect, high quality level, framework to use as our foundation for future releases that can also be easily extended on."

We've seen enough kitchen sinks to know osCommerce's direction is the right one for true open source.  The KISS principle applies to a lot of things including eCommerce.

[jhande]

Hi Harald,

I truely appreciate all the work, time and effort everyone puts into the development of osC.
Without such a free program and all the help offered here at the forums I would never have been able to start an e-commerce site.

When I started out I only new basic HTML coding and have now touched on the basics of CSS, PHP & MySQL. I have to say it has been a difficult journey but somewhat rewarding. And I have the osC community to thank for that.

I still don't understand all the fundimentals, coding jargin, etc... and still rely on support.

My major concerns with the implementation and release of v3.0 is that all the contributions that I have already added to my site will be useless and non-compatible.

I would then assume it would be best for the non-programming site owner to wait on upgrading until the necessary add-on/contributions are available???

A general concern I have is for the community as a whole:

When I started version MS2 2.2 was the current release (actually a couple of the same version).
It was very difficult to find what and when important upgrades were released. I hope that I have upgraded my version with all the necessary changes.
The problem of finding such important updates (such as security fixes, error code fixes, programming fixes, etc...) for the core system needs to be easily found and non-editable by the general public.
Maybe there could be a special section in the forum & add-ons for such news & updates to be easily found?

Best regards,
Jim

[img]http://forums.oscommerce.com/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif[/img]

[FlyingKites]

Oh here we go.  MS3 not even out and Kerry Watson criticizes it because it uses pop-ups on product images by default.

http://www.practicalecommerce.com/blogs/post/706-Newer-Open-Source-eCommerce-program-features-help-stores-to-sell

OMG, some people might have pop-ups blocked!  

So she prefers the use of AJAX ... like AJAX does not have similar issues.

Edited by FlyingKites, 04 June 2010 - 11:14 AM.

[faaliyet]

Hello Harald,

For a long time I follow the studies about OSCOMv3.0. As I read the OSCOMv3.0 will be very succesful.
It will be good for oSCOM v3.0 web programmers as well. We will be able to code more on PHP5 standarts.

I have a great idea. Since we are having new page for OSC we should layout addons better.Moduls are very important.
There are some missing items that I realise.

1-The moduls that are going to be for OSCOMv3.0 should be local separately. Shouldn't be as Target v2.2 v2.1 v3.0 .
For this version I mean for OSCOM v3.0 there should be an other platform.

2-Modul explanations or titles that are on other languages shouldn't be.(spanish,french,turkish,russian,chinese etc...)
First all of them should be in english, then translate should be add.

3-There are many similar moduls for same action.In some parts there are 7-8 addons just for one action.
Some people don't search if there is an addon and add an addon.

4-The previous point is very important. Important addons should be taken on different platform before it becomes addon trash.
The best addons must be taken and others must be delete.

5-There must be more people who controlling addons.Some of them asks questions and most of them makes flood.
And some of them don't update just install the same packages.Disordered installations are too much.

6-There must be more options on modul options. SEO, Security vs...

7-Simple changes shouldn't add as an addon.It is not sensible to make an addon from 2 lines of HTML codes.

8-For the person who creates addons there should be add an "edit addon" feature.
The first person who creates the addons should be able to makes updates, explanations and title changes.

I think addons deserve to be more coordinate.

Edited by Mark Evans, 09 June 2010 - 07:33 PM.

[Pronux]

I have also a great (but little crazy) idea: Why not create an App Store for OSCOM 3.0 where a user can download and/or install contributions directly!

It should also be possible to make a donation for a contribution of which one part goes to the developer and the other part to the osCommerce Team.
This would not only be awesome, but would also force the development of new and important contributions.

Edited by Pronux, 23 June 2010 - 10:26 PM.

[sammysumer]

Pronux, on 23 June 2010 - 10:18 PM, said:

I have also a great (but little crazy) idea: Why not create an App Store for OSCOM 3.0 where a user can download and/or install contributions directly!

Love the idea of App Store. It will be awesome.

What is happening to OSCOM v3.0 progress. It seems that Hpdl is only teasing us. He just occasionally blog and promises more and then disappear again.

Hope everything is OK with him.