NukeCommerce Future (Discussion)

Regular Joined: May 31, 2004 Posts: 95 Location: NY

DJMaze wrote:

burnwave wrote:

Since you've been working on your own store system, why are you considering making a port from another product into said CMS? I don't get it.

I don't understand why i should defend or answer such questions.
Every coder knows the difference between OSS and Shareware and what people decide to use.

I stop here, it's getting more a fight on which CMS then to see all options.
Secondly http://vaelio.com/index.php?run=Forums&op=viewthread&id=61#194 does tell someone his believes and is way out of order.
Hack that whole forum http://vaelio.com/index.php?run=Forums&op=viewforum&id=9 is out of order on that website, and all normal adults know why.
If someone has trouble with someone then talk with the guy in person and don't try to shout behind his back on other websites because the other website has nothing to do with it.
Investigate first before you go rant and rave about something/someone and do apologize if you're wrong.

I don't see where this is a 'battle of the systems'. I clearly mentioned that I could start a new thread if you believed this was the case.

You couldn't provide anything worth of value to this thread, so you retort to belittling me by posting links to my forums which have absolutely no relevance to this thread. Where does that get you?

So what if I dislike censorship. Am I not allowed to host my own playground for folks to speak their minds on issues like this very thread? It would certainly be a very boring place if no one expressed themselves, and I allow that in my forums. Unfortunately, you seem to censor ANYONE who mentions something other than CPGNuke... and something like that happened to that very user who started that thread. In fact, I asked him to start that thread.

Our forum is just as critical as your team's IRC channel. Should I retort by posting chatlogs?

What is the real reason for this thread? Am I confused, or does the OP not ask for opinions about the capability of ecom within specific content management systems? I believe I played the part, threw out my opinions and accompanied those opinions with reason. And because of that, this is now a 'CMS Battle'? Please... At least I knew where and when I was boasting about feature sets in my post(s).

Am I supposed to say 'CPGNuke is capable of ecom' just because it's more secure than phpnuke, etc, even though I believe otherwise? I'm not going to do that Maze. I'm safe to say that my opinion weighs more than yours does, and again, thats due to me having developed an ecom application for the CMS in question. But hey, if my experience doesn't count for anything, both in the community and at a development stand point, then I don't know what to think.

True, you might be the developer of CPGNuke, and you might know your code better than I do... so it's your opinion whether or not CPGNuke is capable of handling ecommerce. If that's the case, why even bother asking for an opinion? It's pretty obvious why.

If this is a matter of jealousy, Maze, I don't understand where this would come into play. You have a working product, and we don't. There is no comparing here. Why get upset over it?

Posted: Sun Feb 27, 2005 6:06 pm

Everyone should understand we're not saying its an absolute no no to sell a few widgets with a PayPal cart from your Portal.

We're looking at larger scale operations such as NukeCommerce/osc2nuke are by design capable of handling. Where 100's to 1000's of widgets and options for widgets are needed. Keyword that comes to mind is scalable.

So far the verdict seems to be stay away from something that sounds too good to be true. And that there is hope out there for a better platform be it Brand-X, CPG-Nuke, Vaelio or the elusive PHP-Portal.

Some other names have been brought up here too XOOP's, Mambo and we can't forget PostNuke. It is agreed by all that any of these would be a more secure base to work from but again require a more extensive PHP knowledge to use and have issues of their own.

Some of the topics commentary is nothing more then a little friendly competition and should be taken as that and nothing more.

We've only pulled down a few votes but I suspect they are "qualified critiques" which pretty much puts the nail in the NukeCommerce coffin so to speak. Which isn't at all what was intended when I raised the issue but none the less it should be seen for what it is a warning users should take very seriously when considering commerce options from todays very limited resources.

Posted: Sun Feb 27, 2005 6:13 pm

sixonetonoffun wrote:

Everyone should understand we're not saying its an absolute no no to sell a few widgets with a PayPal cart from your Portal.

We're looking at larger scale operations such as NukeCommerce/osc2nuke are by design capable of handling. Where 100's to 1000's of widgets and options for widgets are needed. Keyword that comes to mind is scalable.

So far the verdict seems to be stay away from something that sounds too good to be true. And that there is hope out there for a better platform be it Brand-X, CPG-Nuke, Vaelio or the elusive PHP-Portal.

Some other names have been brought up here too XOOP's, Mambo and we can't forget PostNuke. It is agreed by all that any of these would be a more secure base to work from but again require a more extensive PHP knowledge to use and have issues of their own.

Some of the topics commentary is nothing more then a little friendly competition and should be taken as that and nothing more.

We've only pulled down a few votes but I suspect they are "qualified critiques" which pretty much puts the nail in the NukeCommerce coffin so to speak. Which isn't at all what was intended when I raised the issue but none the less it should be seen for what it is a warning users should take very seriously when considering commerce options from todays very limited resources.

I agree. Xoops, Mambo, and PostNuke are all known for the decent security and advanced toolsets. I have used them all, and find that they are more suitable than using PHPNuke.

Also, there is nothing wrong with competition. That is what makes products better if anything.

Posted: Sun Feb 27, 2005 8:06 pm

Different systems is good as i already explained on page 1.
But saying that competition is good, doesn't mean the website of a competitor who talk in here for a solution shuffle others below ground unless there are good reasons.
With that "deleted" forum i mentioned, the decission was already made for several people in here although it was clearly stated Six was looking for a solution.
(like you own www.chrysler.com and have a forum where every chrysler owner can shout that ferrari's are a bunch of crap. Now what makes that of your cars ?)

I:
- did tell what the good & bad thing are of Dragonfly
- mentioned good and bad things about php-nuke
- mentioned other cms who could probably do the task

That's to me a result of a open mind.
If you go say CMS A can't handle eCom but CMS B can, although both CMS have never been tested with eCom yet, to me that's comparing apples with peaches.

As six explained it was about a eCommerce+CMS solution.
We've all seen osc-nuke but nobody has said anything about Mambo+Zen yet, although Mambo+Zen also existed untill the Zen team shifted to 1.2 with a incompatible system.

So yes some already have ecommerce solutions and they did or did not work.

Vaelio and Dragonfly can both be good starting points since they are fresh and new which makes them not more/less secure then others but give the shopper a feeling they have a system which isn't used by half the world (think about having 3 million OSC sites and how much they differ from eachother)

You can start a shop that will work in both, then Vaelio and Dragonfly team can edit their CMS so that the shop can be plugged in easy.

We've already tried with starting "Zen-classes" OO files that control the shop, where the CMS itself controls the output.
The project died because the co-operation of CMS's and Zen didn't have enough time to manage the project.

Almost we all say php-nuke can't handle the job, but what about those millions of php-nuke users ?

I already said it months ago a shop should work OO and should be hookable to any CMS so that the owner of the shop can decide what CMS he's going to use. Vaelio, Mambo, Xoops, Postnuke/Xaraya or Dragonfly.

Menalto Gallery can do it so why can't a shop do it ?
It does mean the shop has to be built from the ground up by people who understand PHP, MySQL and eCom. But as said earlier you can't just hook devs from CMS's to do it cos they don't have enough time.

Posted: Sun Feb 27, 2005 9:12 pm

Quote:

Different systems is good as i already explained on page 1.
But saying that competition is good, doesn't mean the website of a competitor who talk in here for a solution shuffle others below ground unless there are good reasons.
With that "deleted" forum i mentioned, the decission was already made for several people in here although it was clearly stated Six was looking for a solution.
(like you own www.chrysler.com and have a forum where every chrysler owner can shout that ferrari's are a bunch of crap. Now what makes that of your cars ?)

The forum is still there. You need to be a registered user to view/post in that forum. It was initially set up that way, but it was deactivated when I shared the link to the Zentri thread with the Zentri developer. Yes, I do share threads discussing said systems with the developer, as I am not someone who likes hide things. Thus, which was why the forum was public.

Quote:

I:
- did tell what the good & bad thing are of Dragonfly
- mentioned good and bad things about php-nuke
- mentioned other cms who could probably do the task

That's to me a result of a open mind.
If you go say CMS A can't handle eCom but CMS B can, although both CMS have never been tested with eCom yet, to me that's comparing apples with peaches.

I never compared our system to CPGNuke. You mentioned a feature which I assumed you believed was unique to your phpnuke fork, and I countered said claim to mention that our system (not being a fork) also shared the same option. I'm not sure where any competitive comparisons were in that idea. You aren't the only decent php coder out there, remember that. Smile

Quote:

As six explained it was about a eCommerce+CMS solution.
We've all seen osc-nuke but nobody has said anything about Mambo+Zen yet, although Mambo+Zen also existed untill the Zen team shifted to 1.2 with a incompatible system.

Zen was virtually a port to Mambo. It wasn't built from the ground up to accompany Mambo. However, something like Emporium was built exclusively for phpNuke, and that is why it worked so well.

Quote:

So yes some already have ecommerce solutions and they did or did not work.

Vaelio and Dragonfly can both be good starting points since they are fresh and new which makes them not more/less secure then others but give the shopper a feeling they have a system which isn't used by half the world (think about having 3 million OSC sites and how much they differ from eachother)

I'm not sure about Dragonfly, but again, my intentions for Vaelio's system (vaelio is not the name of the cms; it doesn't have a real name) were to handle business solutions such as a storefront system since day 1 of development.

Quote:

We've already tried with starting "Zen-classes" OO files that control the shop, where the CMS itself controls the output.
The project died because the co-operation of CMS's and Zen didn't have enough time to manage the project.

General store classes. Still the typical port we are trying to avoid. Correct? Why must everything include 3rd party scripts which have no compatibility with the content management systems in question (unless you forge compatibility in the system)? I don't understand why a majority of folks are interested in porting things rather than taking the time to develop something from the ground up. I always found it quicker (and smarter) to build things from scratch.

Quote:

Almost we all say php-nuke can't handle the job, but what about those millions of php-nuke users ?

I already said it months ago a shop should work OO and should be hookable to any CMS so that the owner of the shop can decide what CMS he's going to use. Vaelio, Mambo, Xoops, Postnuke/Xaraya or Dragonfly.

This COULD work, but of course there will be compatibility issues. The systems would all share the same classes, but each developer would still need to tidy up whatever admin / user control functions for whatever specific management system they support.

It all depends on how the development team is composed, and how close they are to associated systems that plan on using those common storefront classes.

I'm opened for private discussion about this common classs idea, Maze. You know my instant messaging handles (included on each forum post / profile here). If you don't want to have discussions about this due to MY attitude, I won't be hurt by it in the least.

Edit: Don't use any burnwave contacts. I no longer use them. Will be updated to my squiresmk contacts in a minute.

registered · Useless Joined: Aug 23, 2002 Posts: 213 Location: Chicago

Guys, let's stay on the topic with is e-Commerce and CMS. Now whatever posted on Vaelio's forums has nothing to do with that.
Subject of that thread is of what I believe is wrong but I didn't started that thread here or somewhere else for 2 reasons.
1: I didn't want to start a war on websites who support these CMS.
2: I wanted to post my personal thoughts where I can not be censored.
If you want, I can start a same thread right here at Raven's website or any website you want but I know it will either be locked or will get deleted.

Now, back to the topic:
Six, I am still confused that you are looking for an e-com solution for PHP-Nuke only or you just want to compare options available for PHP-Nuke vs other CMS/forks of PHP-Nuke?

Site Admin/Owner Joined: Aug 27, 2002 Posts: 17088

Mesum wrote:

If you want, I can start a same thread right here at Raven's website or any website you want but I know it will either be locked or will get deleted.

As long as you don't attack each other, I will not "Moderate". I love a sprited debate. It's okay to challenge, of course Wink

Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2005 6:52 am

Well it's not an attack, it's more of my thoughts regarding a fork of PHP-Nuke and it's way of handling GPL license. But I know it's going to start a 10 paged war between me and that CMS's lovers/followers.
Anyways, I am going to post it here and you'll decide if you wanna keep it or delete it.

Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2005 7:30 am

Mesum I've been considering PHPNuke since its easy to work with and modify. Personally I've never had a site defaced using it and only once had a user register bypassing the normal process which was on 6.0 and was just a friendly reminder of PHPNuke's weak user authentification.

I'll be using the cre-loaded package and phpbb 2.1.13 on at least 2 sites before I reconsider using a Portal as a marketplace. The main reason for me is it will do what I need it to do almost as is which leaves me more time for...

So you can see why the development of NukeCommerce/osc2nuke have been of interest to me. If I felt NukeCommerce was stable I'd take a chance on it. But since I need several features its missing I'd have to integrate them on my own as well as update the basic security fixes available for it both from phpnuke and osc teams.

osc2nuke is in better shape but since they are moving in a commercial direction I would prefer to support a package that isn't going to create a conflicting environment with its developers between support and sales. Which is you read several threads on their site it already has.

Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2005 2:03 pm

Same here man. Of course if I use an e-com add-on for my website, it won't be as huge as BestBuy or Walmarts website and I think with few tweaks we can make it work with PHP-Nuke without any problem. I have setup a website using aMember (the crappiest plugin for PHP-Nuke) and one using the NukeRoyal and each website is grossing close to $15K/month revenue so I think it can handle a small e-com site, maybe it's not THE RECOMMENDED solution but it can work. I understand your interest about OSC ports for PHP-Nuke but as I and burnwave said earlier, it's still a lot of risk as if core of port changes, everything in the port has to change too. phpBB is a big example of that.

We need a native add-on that was written for PHP-Nuke only and then if it's missing any features, add to it, it will be easier to do so than taking someone else's code and port it. CCartPro has died out and it could use with PayPal only which is fine in most cases but not all. NSN-Cart on other hand supports a lot of gateways as well has all the basic functions a site really needs and I think it will be easier for us to add more features to it than actually use OSC.

Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2005 3:48 pm

I'm not arguing that it can't be done. I am saying I don't want to have to wonder if my site is safe if I go out of town for a week and leave the laptop at home. I am also saying the ease of use factor applies to what happens after the sale as well as in making the sale. Booking made easy with an export to quickbooks can save a lot of time and make that trip to the accountant a yearly one instead of a monthly one.

These are the features missing from even the best addon carts that are readily available to osc users right now. (Which by the way is becoming more Object Oriented all the time). I don't know but I would guess your not dealing with local sales tax, monthly profit statements and so on. Memberships and electronic goods are fairly easy to deal with and aren't subject to the same issues as tangible goods. Where inventory control and so on are not as simple as looking in the box to see how many pieces are left.

Frankly I think its been fairly well testified to here that no one is going to create those conveniences in the near future for any of the addon carts and if you want it from osc2nuke your going to have to pay for it. Which isn't all bad but again as I mentioned before I see it as a conflict of interest with the dev team there. So I'd rather not even go down that road.

What I don't understand is why there aren't more people interested in supporting a better system. I'm sure if Emporium was generating significant sales (c'mon it was cheap) burnwave would have continued its development inspite of the issues he raises regarding the pain in the arse of keeping up with the constant evolution of phpnuke.

Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2005 4:19 pm

Everyone (well most) wants FREE FREE FREE. "phpnuke is free. Why should I pay kaching!

$ for your app when I can go to Joe Blow and get one for free?". The go to JB and get it. I am becoming less and less tolerant of this attitude. I can name at least 6 well known authors and supporters of the Nuke Community that would starve in a week if they depended on contributions and support. I am very thankful that I have the financial support I have. It covers about 1/3 of my monthly investment on a good month Laughing

. - OPENSOURCE has never and should never be mistaken for free. OS is about FREE to the public code to do what they will with it. That doesn't mean that the code itself must be free. <Settling back down and going to take a nap>

Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2005 6:55 pm

Sorry guys but eCommerce solutions can go down the drain on slow websites.
As i already noticed (but didn't figure out why), there's a issue with sessions if you use your own session handler.

Since most eCom relay on sessions and then also use their own handlers then there is where the trouble starts.
Someone did figured it out and posted it
http://www.php.net/session_set_save_handler#49630

Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2005 7:59 pm

DJMaze wrote:

Sorry guys but eCommerce solutions can go down the drain on slow websites.
As i already noticed (but didn't figure out why), there's a issue with sessions if you use your own session handler.

Since most eCom relay on sessions and then also use their own handlers then there is where the trouble starts.
Someone did figured it out and posted it
http://www.php.net/session_set_save_handler#49630

There is no rule anywhere saying that a custom session handler is required for a system. Yes, that might pose as a problem somewhere, but it's not like we can't code around that problem. I do hope the PHP Team, or someone else, can find a solution to that problem though.

Just an example: Emporium had cookie management, regular session management, and custom session handling option in case any of them had problems in the future (or just by personal preference of the store owner). If someone did find that the custom session handler timing problem to be an issue, they could select a different session handling option.

Perhaps this sort of option could be available in these general store classes?

Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2005 8:03 pm

Raven wrote:

Everyone (well most) wants FREE FREE FREE. "phpnuke is free. Why should I pay kaching!

$ for your app when I can go to Joe Blow and get one for free?". The go to JB and get it. I am becoming less and less tolerant of this attitude. I can name at least 6 well known authors and supporters of the Nuke Community that would starve in a week if they depended on contributions and support. I am very thankful that I have the financial support I have. It covers about 1/3 of my monthly investment on a good month Laughing

. - OPENSOURCE has never and should never be mistaken for free. OS is about FREE to the public code to do what they will with it. That doesn't mean that the code itself must be free. <Settling back down and going to take a nap>

I totally agree. If I am going to develop an application that is built/designed to make others money... the least they can do is pay for the software, more so if it is open source. I don't know how others could devote their time doing anything of the sort for nothing monetary in return (aside from donations if you are lucky).

Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2005 8:16 pm

sixonetonoffun wrote:

I'm sure if Emporium was generating significant sales (c'mon it was cheap) burnwave would have continued its development inspite of the issues he raises regarding the pain in the arse of keeping up with the constant evolution of phpnuke.

Again, the reason I stopped development was because phpNuke didn't have the toolset I was looking for to expand the store system, plus the constant readapting the module to work with phpNuke's module/admin code base each time it changed Sad

. It had nothing to do with lack of sales and such. I had a decent amount of sales for it, and even more custom jobs for store enhancements.

Quote:

What I don't understand is why there aren't more people interested in supporting a better system.

Check back on the first few posts I made in this thread. My guess is due to those reasons I provided.

Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2005 9:10 pm

BurnWave wrote:

Again, the reason I stopped development was because phpNuke didn't have the toolset I was looking for to expand the store system, plus the constant readapting the module to work with phpNuke's module/admin code base each time it changed

/Hits the nail on the head.

It's not like you can write once - run anywhere/everywhere ROTFL

. Totally the opposite. From minor release to minor release you are constantly faced with foundational changes. Why? Because the foundation is built on sinking sand. It really is the law of diminishing returns. I've been saying it since the PN gang split off: Stop all releases and FIX THE DARN THING! Secure it as best possible - not bandaid upon paperclip. Do not add anything. Rewrite it as much as it takes to keep from making the same bonehead mistakes Mad

.

Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2005 10:20 pm

Raven wrote:

not bandaid upon paperclip.

I did bandaid my paperclip in M$ Word though

Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2005 10:27 pm

- Me too. I hate those animations!

Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2005 9:50 am

I ran across this thread just now.
http://creloaded.com/Forums/viewtopic/p=17159.html
So it looks like there is a CPG-Nuke CRE-Loaded effort out there. No files released and it seems like the guy is stuck on modifying the forums way more then is needed... (Bad idea IMO)

Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2005 10:29 am

Some people like one part of the site more than anything else, he seems to like forums a lot Very Happy

Let's see how this script comes out. I going to signup for a site and will bookmark it for future.