Zipped file to include project on winbuilder.net

Please prepare a zipped file and I'll also include on the winbuilder.net main page for other folks trying it out.

A ziped file of the whole project? For what?

To include it on the project section --> http://winbuilder.ne...load.php?list.5

It would be good to have a full version ready to download. For some reason, there is still a lot of confusion about the wb download center and also a good way to showcase the project to other visitors.

You can also make this single zip available somewhere on your server and I'll point the download link directly to there, and this way you'll be able to update as needed.

Where should i upload the file too, if i'm not interested in having it on my server?

Where should i upload the file too, if i'm not interested in having it on my server?

Let me agree to Medevil:

I also have some different servers offering different projects.
And they give the user the ability to download my project, when he / she is once in WinBuilder and uses the Download tab.

Why to have the additional ability at a different place to download my project?

If it is wanted, it should be automatically offered by Winbuilder.

Peter

Where should i upload the file too, if i'm not interested in having it on my server?

Upload it temporarily to your web space and I'll copy it over to the winbuilder.net page.

Otherwise, you can also ask Peter for the access details to http://shared.winbuilder.net

Let me agree to Medevil:

I also have some different servers offering different projects.
And they give the user the ability to download my project, when he / she is once in WinBuilder and uses the Download tab.

Why to have the additional ability at a different place to download my project?

If it is wanted, it should be automatically offered by Winbuilder.

Peter

I think that there are many good reasons to make as many projects available as a single monolithic file for the sake of their survival.

• Bug catch - A single package (labeled as stable or similar) helps when you don't know which script is causing a bug on the whole project
• Downtime - If the author server is down or not working right, it will be easier to upload somewhere else by other people interested in sharing the project
• Troubleshooting - Many users prefer to download a single package rather than letting wb get online - on some cases the proxy settings might also render useless the wb download center
• Simplicity - even thought you know how easy it is to download a project - many users don't even bother to read a single line on the introductory help page to understand what they should download or how to add a new server. The rule seems to be "try first, learn later if it looks easy to understand". Users are not dumb but many will be extremely lazy or have a hard time understanding the english instructions. Less steps might help.
• History - would be nice to go back to very old projects just for fun and see what changed in elder versions.
• Compatibility - a package includes all the possible tools (including the respective winbuilder.exe) that made a particular project work
• Visibility - many people visit the download page on the winbuilder.net and this way would know and likely try out other projects if it looks interesting
• Confort - don't ask why, but I also see so many other users that prefer to download a 1Gb package from their own browser rather than letting wb do this task with updated files.
• Clicks - less clicks, user unpacks the big file, runs winbuilder, chooses the windows source and gets boot disk. (no step in the middle to download project/select servers/etc).
• Statistics - view the number of downloads made or popularity
• Versioning - easier to make project version 1, version 2, version 3, etc..
• Distribution - more places where a project is available, more people will eventually try it out.
• Organization - downloading a single big sized package is more environment friendly than downloading thousands of smaller files and gives less clutter on your hard disk
• Ecology - downloading a single big sized package will require less CPU throttle than letting wb process all the script version compare and less HDD mechanical seeks to find all available scripts
• Compression - you can package your project using 7z in ultra-maximum compression and save a good amount of bandwidth.
• Flexibility - Some will prefer it this way, others don't.
• Robust - even the other day someone mentioned that bart's PE builder seemed more robust. Why? Because people are often afraid of jumping into the unknown and feel confortable with things similar to what they have already used and tried with success before. One package let's users peek around and view what is contained inside before running wb for the first time and we can have an extra guarantee that this package is stable and contains all necessary project files to build a good boot disk.
• Look on sanbarrow's moa work for example - it could have been greatly improved with a nativeEx project but still he uses PE builder because it is considered "robust" under his opinion even thought you perfectly know how it could all be easily simplified with a few scripts instead of giving a lot of long instructions to get a working result but sanbarrow never once tried to write (or understand) a script before.
• Because I've made a very long list of reasons that took a substantial amount of time to write and after this I won't be able to use my fingers to type anything else for the rest of the day.

Many good and a few crazy reasons, use whatever you like best..

Personally, I really like the download center because it will surely give me the freshier files available on the server or simply update the outdated ones that I've downloaded before.

It could be improved but it is still very simple to use, yet, I see so many people afraid of trying it out and this is enough to keep me thinking about the reasons why others prefer to download a single package and also worry to provide this alternative.

It's your call, be happy!

I think that there are many good reasons to make as many projects available as a single monolithic file for the sake of their survival.
...

All accepted and ok, but you did not answer to my

If it is wanted, it should be automatically offered by Winbuilder.

Peter

Wouldn't it just be simpler to:

- Clean the project folder
- Right-click from the explorer shell and add to a zip file?

Wouldn't it just be simpler to:

- Clean the project folder
- Right-click from the explorer shell and add to a zip file?

@Nuno
uploaded the zip to naughtype.winbuilder.net

To answer your 'wouldn't it be easier'
No. Because the cleaning up is not that easy. Took me something like 3 or 4 uploads, the first time, till i've got over every gotcha.
And though i think that an archive for discontinued projects is a great idea, i don't see the point of an archive for active projects.

Thank you!

But what is the download link?

I tried guessing like: http://naughtype.win...t/naughtype.zip but didn't worked.

------

Active projects would likely work better if the respective authors could modify their project package from time to time - that was the reason why I suggested linking back to your web space where you're free to customize or update by yourself.

But what is the download link?

I tried guessing like: http://naughtype.win...t/naughtype.zip but didn't worked.

Don't you just love ??nix server? It's NaughtyPE.zip

------

Active projects would likely work better if the respective authors could modify their project package from time to time - that was the reason why I suggested linking back to your web space where you're free to customize or update by yourself.

Everytime i change a bit, always reupload the whole thing?
No, thank you.
It's already bad enough, that i can't edit the files directly on the server and have to reupload.

Don't you just love ??nix server? It's NaughtyPE.zip
Everytime i change a bit, always reupload the whole thing?
No, thank you.
It's already bad enough, that i can't edit the files directly on the server and have to reupload.

I don't have a pony in this race and so I don't care either way. But, if you (i.e., the developer side of the community) do want to move in the direction of pre-packaged downloads, I can give you a fully automated "one-touch" package updater solution.

In fact I already have one. I built it for my own purposes to customize and package client downloads as a part of my WinBuilder DBMS project that I'm currently developing (or playing with just for fun). It would be no problem at all to include a similar option for project packages which you could then use or not as you choose.

All I'm saying is that assumptions about inconvenience shouldn't be allowed to deter you if it's what you want to do. If it's beneficial, any such obstacles can easily be overcome. And that also applies to file editing, BTW. Of course we'd have to persuade Nuno to enable a few common PHP extensions on his server. At least he has CURL enabled, but not ZIP for some strange reason.

Of course we'd have to persuade Nuno to enable a few common PHP extensions on his server. At least he has CURL enabled, but not ZIP for some strange reason.

Don't worry about me, I'm here to help anyway possible!

My php experience is short, how would I install these missing extensions?


------------

A bit off topic:

Are you still interested in building a unified winbuilder system?

I really don't know how powerful can a web based portal become but I would surely welcome a system capable or merging the components we currently have separated.

- Downloads (both on the forum and winbuilder.net page)
- Allow forum discussion for individual uploaded scripts (app scripts to be more exact: http://www.boot-land.../?showforum=65)
- Developer side project upload and maintenance (already done)
- Integrate the database of the forum to know who the .script developers are

-----

One last thing, also a request..

How difficult would it be to modify the forum software to add a tag system that allowed to categorize topics inside folders to be displayed on the left bar?

Instead of creating several different sub-forums we would be able to sort the topics into more specific areas as needed.

I would try my best to provide all the needed work conditions that you require to make this possible.

Don't worry about me, I'm here to help anyway possible!
My php experience is short, how would I install these missing extensions?

Well, in my case, it's very simple. I pick up the phone and scream at my hosting service: "Hey, you nogoodniks, get off your fat behinds and install the PHP blah-blah extension on my server right away!" Well, actually, I beg and plead a lot, but it usually works eventually.

As I understand it, you're running your own *nix/Apache server. If so, it's just one of those normal Apache configuration processes AFAIK. The PHP manual gives fairly complete instructions here. With Windoze PHP, it's just a very simple php.ini file edit, but I've never done it for *nix/Apache and so you probably know more about the care and feeding of its config parameters than I do. I'll try my best to help with the process if you need me and want to let me in, but it's really more an Apache issue than PHP and others are likely much better advisors on those details than I would be.

Anyhow, you do have the most important PHP extensions already in place. It would be nice for your "guests" if you could at least add that ZIP extension sometime when it's convenient for you, but there's really nothing very urgent about it.

A bit off topic:

Are you still interested in building a unified winbuilder system?

I really don't know how powerful can a web based portal become but I would surely welcome a system capable or merging the components we currently have separated.

- Downloads (both on the forum and winbuilder.net page)
- Allow forum discussion for individual uploaded scripts (app scripts to be more exact: http://www.boot-land.../?showforum=65)
- Developer side project upload and maintenance (already done)
- Integrate the database of the forum to know who the .script developers are

As you know, I've been looking at some of the possibilities of a fully integrated database system, but it has been mainly on the developer/project side up to now and mostly just playing around really. I hadn't even thought about making the discussion forums a part of it, but there's almost nothing that's impossible with a properly conceived and constructed RDBMS system. It's just a matter of careful planning and design -- and a fair amount of work, of course.

It's probably not a good time for me to make a major commitment as I usually disappear for extended periods during the warm weather months -- or, as we call it here in Canada, the season of poor sledding. Nevertheless, I'll do my best to look into the "guts" of your current IP.Board system before I "go sailing" and see whether and to what extent it might be possible to tie it in more closely with other WinBuilder operational elements. How closely are you wedded to IP.Board? Do you consider it to be a "driving force" in and of itself? Or is it essentially an adjuct to the WinBulder operational program? In other words, if something else could serve the same purpose and be more capable of the integration you seek, would you be prepared to make a change?

One last thing, also a request..

How difficult would it be to modify the forum software to add a tag system that allowed to categorize topics inside folders to be displayed on the left bar?

Instead of creating several different sub-forums we would be able to sort the topics into more specific areas as needed.

I would try my best to provide all the needed work conditions that you require to make this possible.

I really have no idea what would be involved, but it looks to me like a fairly simple frame structure which shouldn't be impossible to modify along the lines you're asking about. I'll know better if I can get my hands on my own copy of IP.Board and look at its "inner workings" more closely. (Is it a free download?) I guess what you'd like to see is something like a tree structure along the left side -- preferably a "collapsible" tree, I suppose. It would probably mean giving up a few "bells and whistles" that are currently located there. Like almost anything else, it probably involves a large question of what one is prepared to give up in order to get something different.

__
P.S.: Have a look at the IPS Community Board. It looks as if they already have something very much like what you want in the upper-left quadrant of their own IP.Board v2.3, including the expand/collapse on click feature. It would just be a matter of making the topic/subtopics correspond to WinBuilder's project structure and whatever else might be wanted. As for the database itself and its "integrated residency", that's just a minor detail, comparatively speaking.

What about WinBuilder.exe itself? Can it (will it) handle structured query language (SQL) transactions and/or PHP API calls? For total integration, that's going to be an important consideration.

For MedEvil:

Just for you, I've added an "instant" project compressor to my WinBuilder DBMS prototype. It works right on the server and you have your choice of ZIP, GZIP or BZIP compression, although the last one doesn't seem to be working on the Boot-Land server test installation right now.

Try it out, if you wish, at http://browser.winbuilder.net/ . Log in to the WinBuilder DBMS administrator interface (name: admin, password: admin) select the Client Ops panel and click the Compress button. I'm sorry, but I lied about the "one-touch" thing. You have to select which project you want to compress and enter filename.zip, filename.gzip, or filename.bzip to tell it what result you want. Then just click the Go button and, voila, an instantly compressed project right there before your eyes.

Don't worry about any existing compressed files that you see. It's set to overwrite old ones with newly created ones. So it's "instant updating" as well.

It was throwing a few minor chmod bugs last time I checked, but I may have them sorted out by the time you get there -- if this beautiful, sunny, spring weather doesn't get to me first, that is,

I got this message:

Warning: chmod() [function.chmod]: No such file or directory in /home/.fluke/arvy/browser.winbuilder.net/dbclient/wbfuncs.php on line 1628

But it seemed to create the compressed file without further issues.

One detail - I've forgot to add an extension and it gave another set of errors - would it be possible to add support when no filetype is specified to use .zip as default?

Hey! It was for MedEvil. You weren't supposed to play with it.

It was a quick and dirty addition with no error avoidance built in. I'll get around to it, but probably not today. The weather is just too nice to sit inside.

eheh, sorry..

Lucky for you the weather is great, we in the azores can't say the same as it has been raining for over a week now..

Yes, it is nice here today. In fact, it has been a truly glorious spring so far. Only moderate amounts of rain and plenty of sunshine. But don't be jealous. We really need the break after a long snowy winter -- and they seem to get longer as one gets older.

The project compression addon should be okay now. I think I've made it as foolproof as anything human can be. It's no longer necessary to enter a file name. Just choose the project and the compression type and hit Go. Even if you don't choose, it simply uses the defaults and it makes up its own compressed file name based on the project name and the compression type.

Also, for the time being, I made it put the compressed files into their own "Compressd" subfolder so that they can be handled in the same way as any other project files. But they could be placed somewhere outside of the main projects folder entirely if that's desirable. I haven't really given the details much thought.

For MedEvil:

Just for you, I've added an "instant" project compressor to my WinBuilder DBMS prototype. It works right on the server

Wow, Great!
Thanks Arvy.
Now Nuno can have all the ziped projects he wants from me!

Heh heh. Happy to oblige. You can have all the bells and whistles and brass doorknobs you want as soon as that prototype project is actually ready for client package downloading. It's nearly there. It would be done now if Nuno would stop distracting me with other assignments of much lesser significance.

If you try out the File Manager (same page) you'll notice that it also has an "Edit" button there for you. It doesn't really operate directly on the server files, but it may be a handy little gadget for some minor editing jobs.

Heh heh. Happy to oblige. You can have all the bells and whistles and brass doorknobs you want as soon as that prototype project is actually ready for client package downloading. It's nearly there. It would be done now if Nuno would stop distracting me with other assignments of much lesser significance.

If you try out the File Manager (same page) you'll notice that it also has an "Edit" button there for you. It doesn't really operate directly on the server files, but it may be a handy little gadget for some minor editing jobs.

Richard!

I like your project, and I'm observing it continously.
Unfortunatelly I'm currently rather busy with other things and therefore I decided not to test during this beta stage.

But I have a concern whether it will really work in the bootland area with the current server constellations.

Let me try to explain, and allow me that to make it simpler, I only use, following the actual posts, the users MedEvil and me

There is a BOSS.

The BOSS builds

• A server for zipped projects, Write Access only by the BOSS
• A server for MedEvil, Write Access by MedEvil and the BOSS
• A server for psc, Write Access by psc and the BOSS

MedEvil or psc upload a project to their server and use your ZIP option.
How to bring it to the BOSS's zipped server?

First idea: Give MedEvil and psc Write Access to the BOSS's server.
But: I do hate MedEvil (or he hates me) and changes something in his / my project.

Ok. Between MedEvil and me that is not (yet? ) a problem. We do not hate each other.
But the system should be open for every script developer, currently about 20 persons. And the number surely will increase.

My idea:

Your app builds the zipped version in the original server and adds a link to this zip in the BOSS's server.

The BOSS allowes the individual script developers to maintain links to their servers.

As I'm an app developer, not a network specialist, I do not know whether my suggestion can be realized. But we could think about the background of this post and maybe get better solutions.

Peter

Oh, c'mon. That's pure FUD, Peter. Nothing more than vague potshots in the dark with no substantive analysis whatever.

In the areas of site security and administrative controls, this project is no different than my browser project that you've already used. In fact it adds more security layers and permission levels within the total scope of control of the designated "primary" administrator for each client.

But, in any case, in the final analysis, site security and control (or the lack thereof) is not something that comes from any PHP add-on. Do you really believe that preventing some "hated" person from doing exactly what you say you're concerned about depends on whether you install this (or some other) database client? If so, you are a victim of sad self-deception.

It has nothing to do with this particular project and it's not a subject that I choose to discuss much in the open, but I'll likely be having a quiet word with Nuno about it in private at the appropriate time.

Oh, c'mon. That's pure FUD, Peter. Nothing more than vague potshots in the dark with no substantive analysis whatever.

No I meant it seriously!
Maybe I do not understand everything in detail right now.

Peter

No I meant it seriously!
Maybe I do not understand everything in detail right now.

How could you since, as you say yourself, you've been to busy to actually try it and you certainly haven't seen its inner workings. Anyhow, I have nothing to add to what I've already said on the subject.

How could you since, as you say yourself, you've been to busy to actually try it and you certainly haven't seen its inner workings. Anyhow, I have nothing to add to what I've already said on the subject.

A more useful answer would have been:

Your worries are not relevant, because ....

Item closed for me now.

Peter