integration too complicated?

hix

Joined: 2006-01-25
Posts: 18

Posted: Thu, 2008-03-20 10:49

I looked at the available integrations and noticed that most of them duplicate the database entries. I mean they copy data from the forum database to g2' s database. Not only that this doubles your data and uses more resources than desired, it seems to be more complicated for the admin, too. Often he has to edit more than one file, which might be a problem for upgrades (for forum and gallery2).

I have seen bridges for other gallery scripts, which use the database of the forum (either directly or by redirecting to the forum).

How come this is not possible in G2?

PS I really appreciate the work of the current bridge developers. I just want to understand the reasons for the bridge layouts and make suggestions for improvements.

dmolavi

Joined: 2002-12-05
Posts: 573

Posted: Thu, 2008-03-20 11:12

If you have suggestions for the phpnuke, phpbb2 or phpbb3 integrations, visit my website below and leave feedback there. we're fairly receptive to feedback, though as far as copying users, etc are concerned, it's generally because the two apps store user info in different ways, and rather than hack one app's code to use the other app's db structure, the integration handles it.

For PHPNuke, phpBB2, and phpBB3 integration help, please visit NukedGallery.net.
[img]http://www.nukedgallery.net/signature.jpg[/img]

hix

Joined: 2006-01-25
Posts: 18

Posted: Thu, 2008-03-20 12:51

Thank you for your reply. Now I see the problem. I was just comparing to coppermine, where bridging looks much easier and efficient.

There are still some reasons which makes me believe that the one db integration is better. It uses less resources, which most likely leads to less server load. What about the user control panel? Does the user need to deal with two different panels? This might be a little bit confusing for inexperienced users.

Do you think the one db bridging would make it easier or harder for integration developers? I mean in terms of updating the bridge files to new g2 or forum versions, or assisting users at integration.

valiant

Joined: 2003-01-04
Posts: 32509

Posted: Sat, 2008-03-29 12:15

please read the existing forum discussions on the topic. there are good reasons why we opted for a loosely coupled, tightly integrated solution.
sharing a single user table has important drawbacks as well. and if you wanted to share group tables, it would get really messy.

--------------
Documentation: Support / Troubleshooting | Installation, Upgrade, Configuration and Usage

hix Joined: 2006-01-25 Posts: 18	Posted: Thu, 2008-03-20 10:49
	I looked at the available integrations and noticed that most of them duplicate the database entries. I mean they copy data from the forum database to g2' s database. Not only that this doubles your data and uses more resources than desired, it seems to be more complicated for the admin, too. Often he has to edit more than one file, which might be a problem for upgrades (for forum and gallery2). I have seen bridges for other gallery scripts, which use the database of the forum (either directly or by redirecting to the forum). How come this is not possible in G2? PS I really appreciate the work of the current bridge developers. I just want to understand the reasons for the bridge layouts and make suggestions for improvements.
	XUser login Username: * Password: * Create new account Request new password
dmolavi Joined: 2002-12-05 Posts: 573	Posted: Thu, 2008-03-20 11:12
	If you have suggestions for the phpnuke, phpbb2 or phpbb3 integrations, visit my website below and leave feedback there. we're fairly receptive to feedback, though as far as copying users, etc are concerned, it's generally because the two apps store user info in different ways, and rather than hack one app's code to use the other app's db structure, the integration handles it. For PHPNuke, phpBB2, and phpBB3 integration help, please visit NukedGallery.net. [img]http://www.nukedgallery.net/signature.jpg[/img]

hix Joined: 2006-01-25 Posts: 18	Posted: Thu, 2008-03-20 12:51
	Thank you for your reply. Now I see the problem. I was just comparing to coppermine, where bridging looks much easier and efficient. There are still some reasons which makes me believe that the one db integration is better. It uses less resources, which most likely leads to less server load. What about the user control panel? Does the user need to deal with two different panels? This might be a little bit confusing for inexperienced users. Do you think the one db bridging would make it easier or harder for integration developers? I mean in terms of updating the bridge files to new g2 or forum versions, or assisting users at integration.

valiant Joined: 2003-01-04 Posts: 32509	Posted: Sat, 2008-03-29 12:15
	please read the existing forum discussions on the topic. there are good reasons why we opted for a loosely coupled, tightly integrated solution. sharing a single user table has important drawbacks as well. and if you wanted to share group tables, it would get really messy. -------------- Documentation: Support / Troubleshooting \| Installation, Upgrade, Configuration and Usage

integration too complicated?

XUser login