Jump to content
  • Checkout
  • Login
  • Get in touch

osCommerce

The e-commerce.

STS, BTS, Core Files, CSS...Still a bit conf.us.ed! :)


svedish

Recommended Posts

Hi guys,

 

I'm quite new to the community and I'd like to thank anybody that will take 5 minutes to answer my queries in advance. That is the first thing :)

 

Ok, here comes...A little bit of background:

 

• Installed OSC three times now on my server. Got an older version, a standard RC2, an RC2 with STS (didn't look into BTS yet)

• I'm skimming through the STS user manual.

• I have been reading a book about OSC and the structure seems quite messy, but understandable at least (I guess the real change will come with OSC3 as far as I can read around - at least for tableless designers and developers like me).

• I am trying to understand what the best choice for layout and design customization is.

• I'm decently skilled with PHP.

 

I have few basic questions. Please forgive me is they have been answered before. I did a search, but didn't seem to be very lucky.

 

1) Is STS really only about moving things around? I see the xxxxxx.php.html page links to a CSS that should be in the same folder, but it seems like STS is not really about changing the look, but just the layout (i.e. moving, hiding, adding). Is that correct? On the DiamonSea website I can read in fact: "STS does not control how the boxes look. STS only controls where the boxes appear (or don't appear) on your page. To change the look of the boxes, you'll need to change the code that creates them. Do a search [and so on...]".

 

2) Which way do you guys reckon is the best to change the actual look of things? I'm more than happy to dig into the OSC core core (I'm a backup kind of guy, therefore this doesn't really scare me :P), but first I'd like to know if STS allows this as well and if BTS (by ANY means) could be even better than changing the core code.

 

3) Maybe this is the most important question I have (because it has to do with the future of my main installation). If I change the core code to amend the look and feel, would I be stuck to this version? In other words: how easy would it be (assuming that I will not install any Contributions - the basic features of OSC are way more than enough for what I need) to upgrade to an RC3, RC4 possibly STABLE version? :P

 

Many many thanks in advance, as said,

Best.

Edited by svedish
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OPINION:

 

http://www.oscommerce.com/forums/index.php?sho...p;#entry1220322

 

Core Code changes are better - you get to know the engine of osCommerce - meaning that you don't have to come running to the forum every time you need to know how to change something. And you learn enough to actually write your own code rather than have to rely on someone else.

 

All in all, using any of these so-called template systems is a mistake for 99.9% of people.

 

Hi Burt,

 

first of all thank you for your answer.

 

Changing the core code is surely what I am oriented to do anyway, but still, just for the sake of having a complete picture of this landscape in my mind, I'd like to know:

 

• if STS is made to allow changes to the look and feel using CSS (that in my idea should replace the default CSS)

• if upgrading to new OSC versions can result in a very hard time if I change the core code instead.

 

Cheers,

S

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really - it just adds more complexity to an already over-complex piece of software. It gives an extra "layer" which you can use to position elements with respect to a templated design. It doesn't give the ability to make your site look nice...that's done elsewhere.

 

Not really - if you get to know the code, you'll know what to look out for when you upgrade.

 

I'd say it's far, FAR harder to upgrade if your shop uses STS (or BTS) than if your shop does not.

 

Ok Burt,

 

fair enough. I think what you say makes a lot of sense. To be honest I don't even understand what STS was made for at this point. When I read 'templating system' I think of look as well. Instead STS is just a way to move elements, add elements or hide them. This is templating of course, but just part of it! Isn't it?

I think of WordPress, for instance, where templating means changing the look completely (position, colors, fonts, etc.). But I also understand that WordPress has already got what will come with OSC3. A proper MVC structure.

 

Anyway, just to make sure I got all right: is STS just and not more than what I've just said? No hidden features that I wasn't able to spot?

 

Thanks again

S

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems to me that you have it spot on. :thumbsup:

 

Thanks Burt,

 

you've been very kind. :)

 

I'd like to add a note for the rest of the community if possible here

 

I have been palying around with STS a bit more in the last 2 hours and actually you can change the link to the CSS in the html template and use your own one. For example you could link a css that is in the folder of your template (so the css href would read: "includes/sts_templates/yourtemplatefolder/your.css"). Of course you could use the defualt link and add a link to another CSS to overwrite rules. You could even write rules into the html template itself and take advantage of the 'cascading' structure of CSS once again.

 

But still, I'd like to explain better what Burt is saying. The real problem here is that adding this extra layer onto a piece of software that doesn't really apply the best MVC practices (and defines the look of things around in the code as well) is just not worth it.

 

You may use your styles, you may change the font face, you may change colors and you may move boxes around. But what do you do if you want to change, for example, the width of an element that is not defined in the CSS? You go back to cracking the core code!

 

Maybe at that point it's better to backup the whole installation and amend the core files directly (including of course the CSS). I have to say, though, that for people that don't have a clue of development, but are only very good with HTML and CSS, STS is maybe the only way to go. At least it gives the opportunity to change something in an easy way.

 

Guess we're all waiting for OSC3, :P

Edited by svedish
Link to comment
Share on other sites

STS is a very good resource, I use it on several clients sites of mines and I know of two friends who uses it as well. I feel it is a great resource cause it allows you to change themes on the fly, for instance I have a theme for each of the major holidays so when those times come I can switch easily to make the site more festive.

 

These are not my sites but is an example of what you can do with STS.

 

vividracing.com | mjmautohaus.com

 

STS allows you to change basically the very feel and look of an osC site to the point that you or your customers would not even know its osC.

 

I will agree with you on one thing Burt, STS does not allow you to get to know the core of osC, but majority of the users of osC are regular layman ppl just trying to get their wares on the internet and know nothing about php to begin with. Heck most is probably using the templating system that their hosting provider gives them for their regular site. Or they are using a WYSISYG editor, and do not know the core/basics of web designing/html.

 

I rather have people use STS than buy those horrible mad templates from that template site that is using outdated code and just as generic osC templates.

 

I will say this, I am designing a completely new site for one of my companies and STS has allowed me to hvae the store portion look just like the rest of my site with ease. Once I am finish with the site completely, I will comeback and post it here so you can see what it looks like.

Powered By osC 2.2RC2a STS 4.5.8 - HTC 2.6.3 - FP 1.5.9 - BCH 1.0.0

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would have to disagree with Burt just a bit...

 

It is really a toss up. If you are good with PHP, then make the core changes. If you are so so, then use STS.

 

By the way...Brian has not been around here for a while and no longer supports STS. The quote you took from his web site is for a much older version of STS. The modern version does allow you to template the infoboxes, home page, popup image, category pages, product pages, product content, etc. etc. etc.

 

STS is way more than a layout tool. Yes, it started out like that but has since grown in features and at the same time became a lot easier to install. It get along great with other contributions and does not slow your site down like the earlier versions of STS. It configures in the Admin much the same way your shipping and payment modules do. You no longer have to make any changes to your includes/configure.php and admin/includes/configure.php files.

 

It not anymore difficult to upgrade an osC shop with STS installed than it is with any other contribution installed. I do not know of any shop owners who use osC in the "out of the box" state.

 

:thumbsup: It is really up to you and what you want to get out of osC.

 

Just my less than two cents worth. :-"

Edited by bobosc123
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would have to disagree with Burt just a bit...

 

It is really a toss up. If you are good with PHP, then make the core changes. If you are so so, then use STS.

 

By the way...Brian has not been around here for a while and no longer supports STS. The quote you took from his web site is for a much older version of STS. The modern version does allow you to template the infoboxes, home page, popup image, category pages, product pages, product content, etc. etc. etc.

 

STS is way more than a layout tool. Yes, it started out like that but has since grown in features and at the same time became a lot easier to install. It get along great with other contributions and does not slow your site down like the earlier versions of STS. It configures in the Admin much the same way your shipping and payment modules do. You no longer have to make any changes to your includes/configure.php and admin/includes/configure.php files.

 

It not anymore difficult to upgrade an osC shop with STS installed than it is with any other contribution installed. I do not know of any shop owners who use osC in the "out of the box" state.

 

:thumbsup: It is really up to you and what you want to get out of osC.

 

Just my less than two cents worth. whistling.gif

That about sums it up.

STS brings in more features as well as being a great design tool.

You could easily create specific pages for each category, customize a home page, have a different Flash file display in the header of each category, and so much more.

 

I have a lot of clients who want to update the design of their shop and would not be able to do so otherwise without STS installed.

 

The extra layer mentioned above is far less intrusive compared to the older version of the Simple Template System. STSv4.5.8 is a totally different application compared to when Diamond Sea first brought it to us. It is very comparable to the PHP Template Systems available at Source Forge.

 

I think it is a very powerful tool that levels the playing field for every web designer who wants the power of an osC shop.

Bill Kellum

 

Sounds Good Productions

STS Tutorials & more: STSv4.6, STS Add-ons (STS Power Pack), STS V4 Forum STS Forum FREE TEMPLATE

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tend to think there is nothing that any sts could do that you can not do without sts, but there is something you could do without sts that you can not do with sts.

That's so far what I can see and from my experience, and I am waiting to be proved wrong! :)

 

Ken

commercial support - unProtected channel, not to be confused with the forum with same name - open to everyone who need some professional help: either PM/email me, or go to my website (URL can be found in my profile).

over 20 years of computer programming experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi guys,

 

I'm pleased more people are participating to the discussion.

 

Actually my test installations after few days are now 4... and the last one has got another name: 'Zen Cart' :)

 

You know what, guys? I think that probably these kind of comments we are writing down have been seen on these forums hundreds of times and what STS is, is pretty clear even to myself after a couple of days of playing around and Burt's help. A good tool for people that can't be arsed or don't really know anything about php and MySql. At least they have it.

 

I think, and I don't want to complain because the people that developed OSC did already a great job...I think, as said, that in reality OSC is old and after 4-5 hours of looking into the code (the app top is at least 6! years old), I'm quite sure about what I am saying. Playing around with the code is not a pleasure in other words. Don't get me wrong, I'm great at writing poor code, but at least I write great poor code (if you know what I mean). If I have to hard code I just do it, if I have to add one more abstraction layer for the sake of my workflow (without keeping other developers in mind) I just do it and I even say it in the comments! :P

 

My point is, in short, that OSC could be 30% smaller, could use a proper MVC model and be way more understandable by any php programmer. And all those tables into tables guys... I feel sad when I see them! :)

It sems like going 15 years back in time.

 

Zen Cart seems good in my opinion. The support is poor, but it's clearly based on OSC (at least from what I can see, correct me if I'm wrong). The override system (WordPress like) is exactly how a templating system should be done, at least with the available tools (we're not developing J2EE or .NET apps in other words). You know what? I'll test both. I like Zen and I like OSC. Zen is more modern from what I can see and OSC3 will be a great product in my opinion. I just don't understand why not making it compatible with PHP4. I don't think everybody will be on 5 still for a very long while tbh.

 

Just toughts...

All the best.

Edited by svedish
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tend to think there is nothing that any sts could do that you can not do without sts, but there is something you could do without sts that you can not do with sts.

That's so far what I can see and from my experience, and I am waiting to be proved wrong! :)

 

Ken

Why all of the STS bashing? I just do not understand all of this criticism toward an osC contribution that is given and supported freely. STS is not a cure all for each of the ills of osCommerce nor a substitute for a poor skill set. STS is simply an option to use to assist in the design of one’s shop. :blink:

 

I personally do not know of something you could do without STS that you can not do with STS. I do not even know what that is supposed to imply. It’s like saying why design a graphic using Photoshop when I could just put the ones and zeroes together without it and make my own graphics. :o

 

Even though I do try to respect everyone’s opinion, I don’t get the STS bashing part. STS fills a void to allow a big percentage of users to take part in osCommerce. Why else is it the third most downloaded contribution? Let these people be and just maybe they might contribute back to osCommerce in some way. I see a lot of non-coder types upload contributions that have steamrolled into the mainstream. This can’t be a bad thing. ;)

 

The people who are asking, “how do I” when using STS, is similar to those who do not take the time to read user manuals or search through the threads to find the answer. I can not do anything about this other than just ignore their redundant pleas. I will try to give them some help but most of the time I “point” them in the direction to help themselves.

 

I do not think this has anything to do with the quality of the STS contribution. Just take a look at the same questions over and over regarding the very basics of osCommerce like, “how do I move my shop to a new server”, or “how do I change the color of my font” and on and on and on. These questions are by no means an indication of osCommerce but rather individuals who either want someone to do their work for them or they are truly dumb founded. :blink:

 

If you do not use STS, that’s OK. All that I ask is please do not talk about it like it is the worst contribution uploaded. Remember, it was created and is supported with good intentions, just like each of the contributions available.

 

Is the above so bad?

OK….I didn’t want to say this…..but, Can’t we all just get along? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Bill Kellum

 

Sounds Good Productions

STS Tutorials & more: STSv4.6, STS Add-ons (STS Power Pack), STS V4 Forum STS Forum FREE TEMPLATE

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why all of the STS bashing? ...

You got it completely wrong i am afraid. my comment is not about whether sts (btw this word is used in rather general) good or bad, i am simply stating a fact which i believe in, and i am really still waiting for someone to prove i am wrong. In the last couple of posts on the support thread of my header tags for novices, I also made some comments about sts and invited someone to tell me whether a site (there was a link in the post) could be done by using sts...if what i said is a fact then we dont want to mislead people.

 

Ken

commercial support - unProtected channel, not to be confused with the forum with same name - open to everyone who need some professional help: either PM/email me, or go to my website (URL can be found in my profile).

over 20 years of computer programming experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You got it completely wrong i am afraid. my comment is not about whether sts (btw this word is used in rather general) good or bad, i am simply stating a fact which i believe in, and i am really still waiting for someone to prove i am wrong. In the last couple of posts on the support thread of my header tags for novices, I also made some comments about sts and invited someone to tell me whether a site (there was a link in the post) could be done by using sts...if what i said is a fact then we dont want to mislead people.

 

Ken

Ken, just because someone did not answer your post should not be reflected upon STS. If you had a STS question, it would have been answered in good time in the STS support thread.

 

Regarding your post, yes, that site could be designed using STS or without STS for that matter. STS allows you to use any type of web technology, meaning Flash, CSS, etc. and add in osCommerce functionallity. I have seen users purchase a name-brand osCommerce template to only find that it was created using outdated core osC code and have a nightmare on their hands. With STS, they were able to easily grab the design from the template, the stylesheet and the maybe the boxes class and integrate it onto the latest osC RC2a core base with ease. I mention this because I think the site that you referred to was some form of a web template.

 

You have the right to believe in what you want and I'm not trying to change your beliefs. I just can't understand why so many members of this forum that I respect (you included) seem to have no respect for STS. You talk about it like it was/is the worse course of action anybody could take. I have plenty of clients who do not even know what STS is and have a top notch looking osC web site. On the other hand, I have clients who demand it and still have a top notch looking osC web site. You Say Potato, I Say Potatah. :-

 

Maybe STS is still suffering from it's feeble beginnings and all of the baggage that came with it or maybe I am just taking it too personal. I'm not mad or anything...just don't know why STS gets knocked as bad as it does. :'(

 

My bottom line is that I think STS is good for osCommerce. Without STS, a big percentage of the new users would not even give it a second look (this may change with osCv3). In time, these new users get to see how powerful osC is and just might leave their newbie beginnings and STS along with it and dive into coding PHP. Maybe they will stick with STS..no one knows. But during that time, we get to benefit from all of the collaboration of such a diverse userbase. :thumbsup:

Bill Kellum

 

Sounds Good Productions

STS Tutorials & more: STSv4.6, STS Add-ons (STS Power Pack), STS V4 Forum STS Forum FREE TEMPLATE

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Using STS IS the worst course of action that a newbie can take as they will ALWAYS remain a newbie.

 

STS is not the worst, people who use Photoshop to solely design websites is the worst. You have to remember STS was develop to help those who find understanding the fundamentals of osC design to daunting.

 

I do not think a newbie will remain a newbie cause they are using STS, because as they develop their site they will start to learn about the core of osC, for instance and I know I am only one person, but I figured out a way to carry a users sessions and cart contents through my site, not just the store. So no matter what page they go to on my site they can see what they have in their cart, the total and able to check out. And as I add new contributions I find myself learning a little bit more about osC.

Powered By osC 2.2RC2a STS 4.5.8 - HTC 2.6.3 - FP 1.5.9 - BCH 1.0.0

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello guys,

 

I see my request of advice has turned into a nice and constructive discussion about the pros and cons here. I can only imagine how many times you seasoned osc community members have been involved in these kind of chats :)

 

I see your point there Burt (about php 5). Unfortunately I think that in reality the transition is going to be way slower than expected (on average of course), but moving to Apache 2 and upgrading php as well is on my to-do list :)

 

As for the main point of this thread I really appreaciate all your answers and now, even after just a week and one osc book read over the last month, I got a clearer picture in my mind. And you guys (expecially Burt and Bill) are stating two very valid points, starting from the same problem. The problem is what Burt explained in his previous post and it didn't take much time to me as well to understand it.

 

Burt is pointing out that OSC is poorly written (excellent piece of software if we were in the 90s ofc!) and he clearly states that, given this situation, taking the time to understand it's structure (and a 200 pages book is really enough) would give anybody the real confidence to amend any part of it (add JS, Flash, even add some features or rewrite some routines to really fit the needs). This would give the confidence to troubleshoot the website and real control on the aspect as well, since many things are just spread into the infinity of it's code. How could I ever disagree with him as a developer always willing to improve and learn?

 

Bill, you seem more than aware of the problem as well. You just point out that having STS at least allows other people that don't have the time (knowledge, patience, will) to really grasp the structure, to do something with OSC that can at least resamble a better website.

 

In the end, how can I disagree with either of you guys? I agree with Burt because I think that understanding the structure is good because you learn and you gain invaluable control (for yourself and your clients) over a complex piece of software. I agree with Bill because having STS is better than not having it. Well, maybe for all the answers you end up writing onto this forum, it's a bit better not having it on a second tought! :D

 

The baseline is that OSC needs this extra layer of abstraction brought in by a contribution that adds (an odd web app-like placeholder) complexity to a piece of code that is already uselessly complex (because very old fashioned). Still, without this extra layer of abstraction OSC would stay without a clean, graceful, templating system that nowadays, let's face it, should be one of the first ticks in the features list of a decent piece of web software.

 

From a marketing perspective I now finally understand why Zen filled a big gap. I guess, some of the experienced developers, tired of digging into <tr>s, <td>s, awkwardly hard coded SQL queries, in the lack of a swift change of direction of this project (that will come...work in progress...), just took the code and did what Burt was working on, addressing few of the biggest problems that OSC had: a modern templating system (NB: built in the core code, part of it) and XHTML validation (talking about keeping things moving forward :P).

 

After the 5th installation of e-commerce modules, I think I've come to a decision: I'll build this store with Zen and not just for the templating system.

Reading the code, that I will amend where needed, even if it's not the best piece of code on the planet feels like reading again. Besides, the PHP Cross Reference of Zen Cart 1.3.8 is very, very helpful for somebody new to the toy.

 

By the way guys...thnx.

Edited by svedish
Link to comment
Share on other sites

After the 5th installation of e-commerce modules, I think I've come to a decision: I'll build this store with Zen and not just for the templating system.

Reading the code, that I will amend where needed, feels like reading again. Besides, the PHP Cross Reference of Zen Cart 1.3.8 is very, very helpful for somebody new to the toy.

 

That's too bad. I think Burt and I both agree that we would rather see you build your store using osC. I hope you change your mind and stick with osC and help make it a better cart. :thumbsup:

 

BTW: I want to thank everyone involved in this little discussion for staying on topic and very professional. That is one of the biggest reasons I donate my time here...a lot of good people helping good people. It is not like other forums where users are lurking just around the corner to make you feel unwelcome.

Bill Kellum

 

Sounds Good Productions

STS Tutorials & more: STSv4.6, STS Add-ons (STS Power Pack), STS V4 Forum STS Forum FREE TEMPLATE

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...