| |
Perff
Administrator
Posts: 1679 |
CSDb V2
As some of you might have seen, there have been talked a bit about a CSDb V2.
I have also had this idea for some years now, because of some basic flaws in the originally database design of CSDb.
Now is the time to try to do something about it.
But we, the current CSDb staff, don't have the resources to do this, so we need your help!
Here is what we need:
1. Somewhere to host CSDb V2. The current hosting for CSDb is not very good, as some of you might agree on, and it would be very difficult for more people to develop on it, so a new hosting place is needed.
The requirements for such place are not to much. Talking about performance, CSDb can run on any normal computer today with no problem, and a few gig of disk space should be ok. The daily trafic sums up to about 40-50.000 hits and 300-400mb.
Some kind of CVS or similar to make it easy for multiple people to develop on it, is also required. (PS. We got no money! )
2. People that would help. First of all we need some willing developers - PHP & SQL. I don't think we should get too many - 2-3, perhaps 4 (plus myself :) ) We'll figure that out.
Also some design people, to make the site look kewl. :) And finally some people with deep knowledge of the scene so we are sure to get around every corner in the design phase.
3. Time and patience. :)
The plan is then to put togehter a CSDb V2 team (not to big, 6-8 people tops), and figure out exatcly how to make it. Of course we should look at the current CSDb, but I sugest we make everything from scratch.
Most importaint is the design phase. We must try to take all into account when designing it. I think this is the most importaint part of it all.
Then it gets coded, designed etc, and when it is ready for release, we transfer all the data from CSDb to CSDb V2. :)
Even though the CSDb team is the ones who should make it, it dosn't mean that the rest of you have nothing to say. Perhaps we could post our plans somewhere for all of you to comment on.
That is roughly how I see it.
Now lets have a nice little discussion. :) |
|
... 91 posts hidden. Click here to view all posts....
|
| |
V-12
Registered: Nov 2003
Posts: 206 |
I see no sense for doing something from the beginning again, better way to improve an existing CSDb. It would be a waste of time for woking ong csdb v2
|
| |
Perff
Administrator
Posts: 1679 |
@T.M.R: No one said that the design should be very much different from how it looks today. But if we start from scratch, the html will also need to be made, and the one who created the originally design is no longer active. Also the html-standart have changed a bit over the last 4 years, so there might be better ways to set up a page, than just doing tables within tables within tables... (as CSDb is today) :)
@Murdock: Perhaps you are right. However you guys keep on coming with ideas for improvement of CSDb (which is nice :) ), but as the lone coder of CSDb there is no way I can do it all. Also the things I have made are mostly hacks on hacks because on flaws in the originally DB-design, so even if I got some extra coders to develop on CSDb V1, it would be a nightmare for them to understand and further develop it.
This has been the fact for a long time now, so if CSDb should implement all or most of the wishes you have made, a V2 is required! |
| |
Hein
Registered: Apr 2004
Posts: 942 |
Tables inside tables inside tables is still a solid technique and has become a real standard. XHTML 1 is supposed to be a standard, but every obscure (fill in your favourite nemesis) browser interprets it different. I would stick with the tables inside tables. Besides, this is an 8 bit community, relying on old techniques.
Maybe the graphical design can be retouched a bit, as can the way entries are added. Somehow it takes too many steps to add an entry. |
| |
TDJ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 1879 |
1. Appearantly tables inside tables is the devil, and <div> tags are the way to go. At least that's what I learned in the 'real' world ;) But yes, there may be some problems with compability.
2. CSDB v2 is a good idea, hacking CSDB v1 further into something that will collapse under its own weight is bad, hmmmm. Murdock, remind me never to offer you a job as a web-application-programmer, okay?
3. You shouldn't just change the way things look, the most important is the user interface. Make it easier for people to add stuff etc. like Hein proposed. Interaction Design is a must these days! |
| |
Hein
Registered: Apr 2004
Posts: 942 |
TDJ, I was about to tell the world you are a great software architect, but you proposed to help yourself allready. ;) |
| |
T.M.R
Account closed
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 749 |
Well, scream if y'want me Perff but consider me a fallback option - if anyone else wants a go, give them the gig over me. i'm a tables-in-tables sort of person, for reference. =-)
Oh, whilst i'm here... why do most of my entries list me as T.M.R/Onslaught rather than Cosine...? |
| |
Hein
Registered: Apr 2004
Posts: 942 |
Quote: Well, scream if y'want me Perff but consider me a fallback option - if anyone else wants a go, give them the gig over me. i'm a tables-in-tables sort of person, for reference. =-)
Oh, whilst i'm here... why do most of my entries list me as T.M.R/Onslaught rather than Cosine...?
Provide join/left date for Cosine.
Maybe it should be the current group(s) by default, instead of groups with dates set. |
| |
T.M.R
Account closed
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 749 |
Ta Hein, although now it's listing me as Cosine and Onslaught for Cosine stuff! =-) Might be nice to have an option in V2 to select which group(s) the handle was working for at the time...? |
| |
Hein
Registered: Apr 2004
Posts: 942 |
yeah.. mmm, shit, complicated.. bleh, bleh, go away, complicated thoughts..
probably allready works that way, only the release will need a releasedate as well.
oh, wait.. set a join date for Onslaught.. :) maybe that works.. minute accurate, please.
Glad count zero will fix all the info, sigh.. he's da man. |
| |
Count Zero
Registered: Jan 2003
Posts: 1926 |
Yeah, I will fix EVERYTHING and lock it up properly then, so nobody can change my book on scene history. :)
However, table in tables in etc. are NOT the way to go for sure. Especially since C64 browsers handle that so badly. :)
l8r
Count Zero/CyberpunX/SCS*TRC |
| Previous - 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 - Next |
