Forum Replies Created
-
I’m too cheap/stupid to pay for a solution that doesn’t need any tweaking and I certainly can’t afford to pay someone for customizations at this point.
As open source software, I assume I’ll be making significant changes if I’m impatient. I think there is acknowledgement that some of these “features” should be in core at some point and they are asking the community to input on their priorities. In the meantime, I’ll make my hackish solution to user, group types and many other things.
I’m willing along with others here to post what we’ve done with NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES.
If that’s not acceptable, there are other community softwares available at different pricepoints.
Learning enough php to make what you want should be backbreaking if you know javascript or other client-side stuff. I taught myself Flash when everyone thought that was the wave of the future. That was way more painful than php.
@David, thanks for Lynda.com. I find most of what I need on php.net, w3schools.com and youtube.com, but always looking for additional resources.
I’d have to disagree though about separation. From Andy’s response, I take that separation to be less than desirable, but workable. See https://buddypress.org/forums/topic/buddypress-theme-with-wptheme#post-32424 and https://buddypress.org/forums/topic/buddypress-theme-with-wptheme#post-32593 and http://themehybrid.com/community/topic/hybrid-version-08-discussion#post-2398.
This is not an indictment of BP, but an acknowledgement that at current form is very tightly linked to function and separating them won’t be easy, particularly without some php skills.
Look under plugins for BP Geo which I think does this
I would gear my videos to the WP masses that will now start using BP
What Buddypress is and is not?
Theming and Theme Frameworks
Integration with WP, bbPress
Hardware/Hosting considerations
Extensive examples of creating child theme and components
OK, I know this might not be well-received, but learning a bit of PHP will allow you to do almost anything with WP (and break some stuff too). It’s not that different in syntax than javascript (at least functions).
I’m not a programmer, but a guy who bought a book on PHP/MySQL awhile back and WP is so easy you could teach yourself the basic stuff.
If you’re not comfortable building things from scratch, start with a plugin that does 70%+ what you want and then toy with it. I’ve been able to butcher a few plugins into exactly what I need. Also learned JQuery from w3Schools and JQuery is amazing.
I’ll be trying to solve the challenge presented here sometime in March. I believe some future BPCONTENTS plugin should do it, but until then there should be enough WP functions/hooks to make this relatively simple with a nice JQuery front end.
If you run across an example that has different levels (some needing approval), please share.
I’m trying to give this some thought. Frankly, users shouldn’t have to sign up unless there is some value to them for doing so. I will have different user types and each has different information requirements. I also want to use BP Geo so I’ll use Google ClientLocation as a starting point, but would like users to input that information too. Basically, I’m crafting the prompt for registration and more profile info based acknowledgement of the value proposition for that user type.
With 3.0 work in full swing, I guess the repo is taking a bit. Any other way I can get the files or any idea when the repo will be ready?
I believe jjj suggested that this functionality would eventually be the subject for adding to core. It is an extension of the BPContents idea incorporating capabilities like for users.
I suspect this aways off, but maybe will get back on the radar after 1.2. This would be a giant step toward a more flexible CMS.
Thanks. I didn’t know the roadmap had been “updated.”
Given the official support, I think I’m gonna scrap MU. Haven’t made any customizations I can’t easily port to WP single. Great news.
Can someone let me know whether 1.2 will “offically” support WP 2.9? I will probably launch after BP1.2, but before the merge. Right now, I’m having some issues with WP plugins working on WPMU, but would rather that than BP plugins not working on regular WP.
Also check out Role Scoper which now has good support for WPMU. I’m doing the same thing, but was hoping to use Role Scoper and BPContents to achieve the same.
Search this site as folks have made modifications to BP contents plugin to allow this functionality. My understanding is many plugins may break with 1.2 (at least because of theme issues) so you might wait to see how BPContents looks at that point.
I imagine we will see a first group of WP powerusers who just didn’t want to mess with WPMU. They don’t mind playing with trunk of BP and WP at the same time.
Soon after though, we’ll see the pent up massess who want the functionality, but want no hiccups, plug and play. Support questions will likely shoot the moon. Hopefully that first group will be here to help.
Just browsing, but kudos to Andy for providing support on unsupported features in unreleased software on unsupported platforms. Wow.
I had a need to do this with posts (geocode, sort by distance, map). I did it with two WP plugins Google Maps Geocoder and SimpleMap. I had to rewrite Simplemap to query the post/postmeta table instead of its own tables.
Now that I know how to do that, it shouldn’t be hard for usermeta or groupmeta. I just suck at javascript which all the geocoding and mapping stuff uses.
I will need to do the same thing for users and groups once BP 1.2 is out. If no one tackles it before I do, I’ll donate the code, but it won’t be plugin worthy as I don’t do admin interfaces and options pages. Since the site is for me, I save my time and bandwith by putting settings in a well commented php file.
I’m very late to this party, but since I’ll be developing when 1.3 comes out, here’s my two pennies.
I believe the modularity and CMS capabilities of WP/BP should be expanded. I think we need the ability to create different “content types,” “user types”. Groups could essentially be a user type. Users are a user type. Tournaments, Classrooms, Camping Trips could all be user types. Differentiation is based on functionality and capabilities. I’d like to see a single API work with user types as I hope WP is moving toward for content types.
Let me decide what a friend can do just as a group. Because “groups” can have multiple distinct members, they require a bit more thought, but other than that it should be the same.
BTW, I would never want users to have their own individual forum, but someone else might and that’s the point.
solved my issue. Hope it helps someone. https://mu.wordpress.org/forums/topic/16051?replies=6
Try BP Contents plugin. If you search around some has got it working on the newest BP version. Maybe Burt will resurrect it before Andy & jjj get this idea into core where it belongs.
@Symm2112. Just left the GF forums and it does need to be activated on each blog separately. They said they’d look into changing this, but not until after the merge (boy that merge is going to open some doors).
I’m looking to do a single blog install, so this solution still might work for me. I’ll have many groups, but one blog, therefore only one GF. Each group can still get it’s own category for posts (e.g. $blogcategory = “blog” . $blogid). I can display posts to that category only on that groups page (e.g. is(category)).
I can afford to be a bit patient and see how this all develops. I’m actually not even in the BP stage of development. Still kicking the tires on my XAMPP WPMU install and making sure my other core functionality (e.g. the mapping I mentioned above) is working before I even install BP (will wait for 1.2 and WPMU 2.9).
Given the theming issues, I’ll probably install Hybrid as a parent and ensure it’s working before I install BP. I’ll keep folks posted when I get to this. I’m just a planner by nature, so I’m trying to think things through – measure twice, cut once.
@Andy, First, I have nothing negative to say about BP. It is allowing me to do things I would NEVER even attempt on my own. Looking back on the programming I’ve done in the past, there was NO separation (mostly pre-CSS, php/mysql where my separation was myriad includes). However, as I look at Justin’s code, I’m learning the elegance (and additional complication) of separating form from function.
Doing everything through functions.php, styles.css and hooks is a challenge for me, but I do see the benefits. If there are sufficient hooks, most things can be accomplished this way. If there is a hook, I can use the new template tag just by modifying functions.php instead of changing the myriad template files that might contain the new tag.
What sucks (for me) in that model is I have to switch back and forth from template to function and then ensure I test everything well. What works is I get to change it once.
Regardless, for template tags and other changes, what’s most important is documentation (which can be a challenge with development cycles). If the changelog tells me what to look for and what functionality has changed (see Peter’s post above), the process is MUCH less painful. I know you know this, but most of us would rather have the features now and struggle without the docs – Catch 22.
Whatever the result, I’m ecstatic that Buddypress exists, that Automattic adopted it and you finally have some additional help.
This solution might work, but it’s hackish. Using Gravity Forms (more beefed up than TDO), you could create a form that automatically shows up on a page automatically created and linked from a group page. This form allow whatever you want, including shortcode for video, user posts, etc.
When the user posts, you can select whether it goes to publish or to draft.
WP functions should allow you to hook into the group creation to create a page with a unique name attached to that group. Using WP functions, you should be able to create a link between an exisiting GF form and the newly-created group and it’s group page.
Doing everything else with the form is cake with GF.
This is not my ideal, but I’ll look into it.
Yesterday, I used GF to create form submissions that turned into store/party locations (custom postmeta) that are then geolocated by another plugin and put in a store locator by another plugin. I’ve been pretty impressed.
@mercime, I appreciate the practical examples. I’m probably going to go with Hybrid as my parent, maybe with the BP-specific template files added for members, groups, etc. I’ll have to see how much functionality is trapped in template files as opposed to styles.css and functions.php. If most of the good stuff is in those two files, it shouldn’t be too bad.
OK, I might be suffering from this if I knew what “this” was. My MU homepage works fine. When I go to the blog (there’s only one for now) homepage it gives me header/footer/sidebar, but 404 where the body should be.
In the sidebar, I can click on my about page and other pages I’ve added which show up with the mod-rewrite rule I made in admin. On the main homepage screen, I can click on the links for posts and the show up fine.
It’s only the blog homepage that I get these errors. My setup is a bit funny.
Root directory has 2 files wp-config and htaccess and 2 folders /core and /wp-content. The blog homepage is pointing to /core whereas the site homepage is correctly root. I’m still testing on XAMPP for windows.
Yes I did ask on MU forums, but since it came up here, I’d thought I’d ask.
Cool, I’ll kick the tires. Need some of that 2.9 functionality for testing so I’m running trunk of everything right now. Don’t need to launch until spring so I can wait.
@andrea_r, I meant did Justin know. He’s planning on a BP framework, but is waiting on the merge. I know about you and Ron as I’ve been all over wpmututorials.
Forgive me for not having dug through the code as much as I should before commenting. I will do that before I go much further. However, one of the things that Ptah Dunbar and Justin Tadlock have made me think hard about is separation of appearance from functionality.
The goal would be for Hybrid to handle all the WP functionality in a theme “framework” (which I consider ‘less’ than a parent theme). Of course, he would bundle some templates as a starting point, but the core would be in the “functionality” files. For the developer, what is key is the knowing the custom functions, hooks and css rules built into the framework.
OK, now BP comes along. It is adding “functionality” that will hopefully “appear” somewhere. Because Hybrid is the parent, I’d want to put the BP files in the child. Again, BP would ideally be a separation of function from appearance (Andy above suggests that separation is not that good, but I’ll dig through at some point). BP functionality would be placed in the child (e.g. functions.php, .js, etc). Where those functions didn’t conflict with Hybrid, they would just be additional functionality.
Now, the BP templates would go in the child too. They would be hacked into oblivion, but as long as the functions are the same, omitted or supplemented by my own, it shouldn’t matter. When BP is upgraded, I’d have add the new functions/js, but that shouldn’t break my site unless they conflict with existing ones. The painstaking part would be looking through the templates and understanding how the new functions are used and porting what I want and leaving behind what I don’t.
Hybrid would be automatically upgradeable and the functionality part of BP would almost be automatically upgradeable. The painstaking part would be adding the functionality to my existing – custom child theme.
What am I missing?
