in reply to Re^6: Ideas for "fixing" PerlMonks 1.0
in thread Ideas for "fixing" PerlMonks 1.0

I extend the same offer to you. Let me know what table(s) you need, and then we can start creating the code nodes.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^8: Ideas for "fixing" PerlMonks 1.0
by LanX (Saint) on Dec 18, 2024 at 17:34 UTC
    It's still work because I have to strip and rewrite things, (like passwords rules which are not enforced here + JS to check the passwords) and other proprietary stuff.

    I'm not very motivated to start a lengthy process if the monastery was not capable to hash the passwords in the first place.

    What would be the migration path?

    And I need to know the main mailing interface of PM. Seems like different gods implemented multiple attempts.¹

    Last but not least I would need a Dev environment to test effectively.

    Do I have the possibility to copy code into a node and run it directly?²

    It's a one file CGI, squeezing it into one node should be easy.

    Cheers Rolf
    (addicted to the Perl Programming Language :)
    see Wikisyntax for the Monastery

    Updates

    ¹) I can't find the code for Everything::MAIL.pm

    ²) or the right to locally apply patches

      I'm not very motivated to start a lengthy process if the monastery was not capable to hash the passwords in the first place.

      Then don't. But don't then complain when others take the same attitude.

      I need to know the main mailing interface of PM.

      That's the sort of thing I was referring to when I said I'd help with any interfacing to the framework. Since I'm helping you, we'll use my preferred way. ;-)

      I would need a Dev environment to test effectively.

      Not going to happen (unfortunately). Is it a deal-breaker?

      Do I have the possibility to copy code into a node and run it directly?

      I will make you a new htmlcode node. You submit patches to it.

        > Is it a deal-breaker?

        I need to apply patches to the node in question to code efficiently, yes.

        > Then don't. But don't then complain when others take the same attitude.

        Ok if there are no plans to hash the passwords, why bother?

        Cheers Rolf
        (addicted to the Perl Programming Language :)
        see Wikisyntax for the Monastery