Pierre (Entries tagged as dotclear2)

Comment fixed

nospam@example.com (Pierre) — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 17:46:00 +0100

The comments are finally working again. After a little bug in the dotclear2, I forgot to remove the old antispam system. All comments were marked as spam. Everything should work well now. Back to a free talk mode

dotclear2, create a feed for a tag

nospam@example.com (Pierre) — Fri, 29 Dec 2006 17:52:00 +0100

It is a small addition but really useful. If you already use dotclear2, you may have missed the new feeds options (see the URL handlers code). It is now possible to create a feed for a given tag. For example, my PECL related entries can be fetched from:

http://blog.thepimp.net/index.php/feed/tag/PECL/rss2

By the way,the beta4 is out, go fetch it!

preserve dotclear 1.x URL while upgrading to dotclear2

nospam@example.com (Pierre) — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 03:44:00 +0100

Loosing his old URLs is not always a good thing and not only for the ranking in google. I got a couple of requests to restore them, here you go, old post URLs are back.

Here is the lighttpd rewrite rules for the old rss.php file and the post access, if anyone needs it (not really rocket sciences, but copy/paste can be faster :

         url.rewrite-once = (                 &quot;^/rss\.php&quot; =&gt; &quot;/index.php/feed/rss2&quot;,                 &quot;^/index\.php/([0-9]{4}.*)&quot; =&gt; &quot;/index.php/post/$1&quot;         )

Update You can find further rules for apache’s mod_rewrite in the dotclear’s forum. If you need some of them for lighttpd, let me know, I can try to "port" them (I’m happy with the two rules above).

comment posting fixed and warning removed, and why I don't mess with getter/setter

nospam@example.com (Pierre) — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 04:25:00 +0100

During my upgrade to dotclear2, I noticed some notices about ""Indirect modification of overloaded property" and thought they are minor (notices…) and can be somehow ignored, bad idea

It seems that the known issues with setter/getters with array are more serious than I thought, being not really a fan of these magic methods, especially not for arrays or other non scalar data, I did not really "care", selber schuld

In the case of dotclear, the workaround is relatively easy:

<br />
class context<br />
{
  public $stack = array();</p>
 
  public function __set($name,$var)
  {
    $this->stack[$name] = $var;
  }
 
  public function __get($name)
  {
    if (!isset($this->stack[$name])) {
      return null;
    }
    return $this->stack[$name];
  }
}
 
	<p>$ctx = new context;<br />
$ctx->comment_preview = array();<br />
$ctx->comment_preview[&#8216;content&#8217;] = &#8216;&#8217;;<br />
$ctx->comment_preview[&#8216;rawcontent&#8217;] = &#8216;&#8217;;<br />
$ctx->comment_preview[&#8216;name&#8217;] = &#8216;&#8217;;<br />
$ctx->comment_preview[&#8216;mail&#8217;] = &#8216;&#8217;;<br />
$ctx->comment_preview[&#8216;site&#8217;] = &#8216;&#8217;;<br />
$ctx->comment_preview[&#8216;preview&#8217;] = false;<br />
$ctx->comment_preview[&#8216;remember&#8217;] = false;<br />
var_dump($ctx);</p>
 
	<p>$comment_preview = array();<br />
$comment_preview[&#8216;content&#8217;] = &#8216;&#8217;;<br />
$comment_preview[&#8216;rawcontent&#8217;] = &#8216;&#8217;;<br />
$comment_preview[&#8216;name&#8217;] = &#8216;&#8217;;<br />
$comment_preview[&#8216;mail&#8217;] = &#8216;&#8217;;<br />
$comment_preview[&#8216;site&#8217;] = &#8216;&#8217;;<br />
$comment_preview[&#8216;preview&#8217;] = false;<br />
$comment_preview[&#8216;remember&#8217;] = false;<br />
$ctx->comment_preview = $comment_preview;<br />
var_dump($ctx);<br />

The first initialiation will raise notices and fails (do not assign anything, as the error message says), the second works like a charm. This bug just confirms what I think about all these magic methods, don’t use them for non scalar unless someone put a gun on you.

The issue is known (thanks tony for the info). It is certainly due to the read/write access required by the array element change, but I do not know exactly how userland getter/setter work. I reopen an old bug (#36214), let see what will come out of it.