Jump to content
Latest News: (loading..)

burt

Team
  • Content count

    13,078
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    468

Everything posted by burt

  1. From my side, assuming that you are directing this at me, whatever people think they see and know; there are no differences. wHiTeHaT wants to do his project, so he should do it. I suspect many shopowners shall be very glad to finally see a bootstrapped admin.
  2. There is (in the addons somewhere) a manual order maker. I am not sure how it works (or if it works)... But if that could be used, that could be a way out of the mess. So long as you have the customers details and the order details. A client of mine had the same problem on monday evening. I put it down to paypal being glitchy at the time, as orders prior and since have been recorded fine (both at paypal end and at her osc shop end). I spent a bit of time manually :-\ adding in the missing order directly in phpmyadmin for her to get it sorted.
  3. o_O someones not happy...

    1. valquiria23

      valquiria23

      not happy with what? why? please detail !!!

    2. Java Roasters

      Java Roasters

      Can't make everyone happy, that is the way the cookie crumbles.  

    3. burt

      burt

      No doubt about that!

    4. Show next comments  6 more
  4. Are we in agreement that this new CCPA does not affect the vast majority of osCommerce users ? Hands up who does USD25m per annum... Hands up who has 50k customers...
  5. burt

    Side bar design

    Correct. stylesheet.css was deprecated custom.css was added - custom.css is used for necessary .css going into core, this file should not be touched by anyone except those working on core - this file over-rides the bootstrap css file and the fontawesome css file user.css was added - this is the only .css file that developers and shopowners should be using as this file will *never* be updated/changed as part of core - this file over-rides the bootstrap css file and the fontawesome css file and custom.css file
  6. I've given up trying to get through to you. You have a really closed, narrow-minded outlook on a lot of things. This is business 101: business owners use the best tool at their disposal. They want something, they go and source it. That is the end of this part of this thread, thank you. Any more replies about what should or should not be in the core of osCommerce will be removed and posters will get one warning of "off topic crap".
  7. That sums up my thoughts on it, perfectly.
  8. I really don't know. It should be easy, but some people just don't see it. Shopowners will need to decide which version they want to use, hunt it down and install it as it WILL be an external extra. It won't be.
  9. I imagine then that most osCommerce users are exempted as (in my opinion and understanding); barely any will have Gross > 25m usd I personally know of two (osC based) businesses that do this level of business barely any have customers > 50k Again, one of those shops (above) is near to that number Sell personal info? WTF? I am certain no ecommerce business owner stoops that low.
  10. Well, we disagree on that and as it's me making decisions and I am saying "the future is modular", it is time to stop with the ethos of "more in core". There will be *less* in core, for the reasons already mentioned. If these people are running a business they will choose the best product that fits their need and not the product that costs nothing. If they choose a different cart: good luck to them.
  11. burt

    Content module coding help

    They can be blank, as they are extended in the __construct function. Look at the first 6 lines under the class cm_footer_conditions_modal { and The 6 $this-> in the your cm_footer_conditions_modal() / __construct function.
  12. burt

    Content module coding help

    These two things let tthe script know what it is and where it should be.
  13. burt

    Content module coding help

    It would be so cool if more people would ask these sorts of questions instead of just doing what they think is right. Kudos to you. which are lines 2 and 3 ? use basename(__FILE__) to call the template, and rename the template file appropriately (see code in point 4) the first function name in a class cannot be the same name as the "parent" class name (in php 7) use __construct or put an empty function in as so; function blah() { } You are displaying here: if (in_array(basename($PHP_SELF), $pages_array)) { $oscTemplate->addContent($template, $this->group); } so you might as well load the whole thing here; if (in_array(basename($PHP_SELF), $pages_array)) { ob_start (); include('/includes/modules/content/' . $this->group . '/templates/tpl_' . basename(__FILE__)); $template = ob_get_clean(); $oscTemplate->addContent($template, $this->group); }
  14. .css is faster loading, not by much though. If you're happy with the svg/js stick with it.
  15. Sometime in the future. You'll remember I asked for help to move things forward faster...which would have meant a month of full time developing. I didn't get the help I hoped for, so things move at the pace of a very part-time developer. Maybe one of the wannabe coders will make something for you.
  16. I was testing the differences between the js and svg and css versions. Don't know why I left it on js..... good spot guys! Changing to the .css version: Pingdom https://tools.pingdom.com/#!/djjgqq/http://template.me.uk/frozen2bs4/specials.php Reduces load time to 0.488s GT Metrix https://gtmetrix.com/reports/template.me.uk/xZZMH1i8 Reduces load time to 1.0s That is blazing fast!
  17. Just for my satisfaction, I removed the call to FontAwesome. I then tested the page again; Pingdom: https://tools.pingdom.com/#!/bFNGAJ/http://template.me.uk/frozen2bs4/specials.php Requests down from 14 to 13 Loaded time reduces from 0.674s to 0.582s GT Metrix: https://gtmetrix.com/reports/template.me.uk/HDTZvPTi Pagespeed stays at A 100 Y Slow moves from A 98 to A 99 Loaded Time reduces from 2.0s to 1.5s Page Size down from 396kb to 119kb Requests down from 15 to 14 Conclusion Shave milliseconds off the page load time. Worth doing? Maybe for some shopowners, but not for core.
  18. I'm 100% sure that things will be removed from Core, in order to make it; easier for "Team" (hahaha) to support easier for coders to code new stuff easier for shopowners to have a choice of what they want I can't imagine any scenario where osCommerce gets more things added. As for GDPR things: There is already a very good GDPR system available for these (as you put them) "business people who don't want to be computer wizards" .
  19. Made one for next iteration of CE (bootstrap 4 version). You'll be able to backport it when I release it.
  20. Here is the same page from Pingdom: https://tools.pingdom.com/#!/FovH0/http://template.me.uk/frozen2bs4/specials.php You can see here that the result is also great, at "100" with a load time of .6 of a second. Scrolling down a bit shows this: What this says is 71% of the "weight" of the page is due to loading fontawesome (FA). So if shopowner really wanted to optimise, they could remove the call to the FA script. Mostly FA is used to make buttons look pretty by having a nice little icon (eg the cart icon on the buy button); By removing the call to FA, that icon (and all the other button icons) and everything else that uses FA would disappear. Problems caused by removing FA there are a few buttons where FA icon is used with no text. From memory; - search module in header - refresh buttons in cart - delete button in cart - there may be more... Payment Icons in footer_suffix module The next step, if someone wants to take it on...is to explore the possibility of replacing the full FA with a version that just has the icons needed (ie, the ones that are just decorative)...
  21. Adding stuff in is not the way forward. The way forward is modular.
  22. Here's the latest, showing a "heavy" page "specials.php https://gtmetrix.com/compare/sEItXfZF/6gZaE1lD Frozen Page Speed: B 80 Y Slow: B 81 Frozen2BS4 Page Speed: A 100 Y Slow: A 98 A *massive* difference. Try visiting Frozen2BS4 and see how fast it is.
×