You searched for the word(s): userid:17298

More Search Options

RSS Available

• Re: dnn 3.2.1 and 4.0.2 localization problems (filemanager and FTB)

  idaskaya wrote: Do you know how FTB gets the toolbarimages path? FTB can use either internal or external resources for both images or languages. We are using the external ones in the included FTB provider. you will find them under the folders you mentioned earlier.

  Posted to DotNetNuke (Forum) by JWhite on 12/25/2005

• Re: How to Upgrade 3.1 Source???

  rfurdzik, As you may know we actually take backward compatability very seriously, however, the Core Team was forced to make some hard decisions when faced with supporting ASP.Net 2.0 installations. The development and compilation model are ENTIRELY DIFFERENT and largely incompatible. We had to make some "breaking" changes in the file locations and directory structure (DNN 4.x) but still allowed for 3.x private assemblies to work. That is why we have maintained a 3.x and a 4.x code base that are basically

  Posted to DotNetNuke (Forum) by JWhite on 12/24/2005

• Re: Migration from DNN 3.x to 4.x

  Taken from previous posts: For the "Install" versions(3.x Install to 4.x Install): if you would like to upgrade to 4.0 from 3.1, the procedure is not that much different from any other upgrade. The only real issues relate to the radically different structure of the web.config file (due to .NET2 changes). The recommended procedure is as follows: backup web.config (rename to web_old.config or other similar name) rename release.config to web.config move any user customised items from the backed-up

  Posted to DotNetNuke (Forum) by JWhite on 12/23/2005

• Re: DNN Newsletter?

  I think it is sent to all registered dotnetnuke.com members (make sure your email address is up to date on the site). The December issue should be out shortly. and will also be archived on dotnetnuke.com with previous issues .

  Posted to DotNetNuke (Forum) by JWhite on 12/23/2005

• Re: Open source guarantee?

  RLyda wrote: did the boys at Berkley really get a crystal ball that was so much better as to never need review--let alone review of applicability to any particular project)? Actually, Yes, they did get it right. It was designed as an academic license for the betterment of all to study, learn from and enhance. Because the BSD license has NO restrictions regarding linking, use, or modification, there is little need to "update" it to stay "current and relevant". Many companies are MUCH more comfortable

  Posted to DotNetNuke (Forum) by JWhite on 12/19/2005

• Re: FreeTextBox Errors (Never seen this one)

  I think it might be a skin css parsing problem. Look for leading spaces in the class names and remove them. Also try upgrading to 3.2.1 or even loading the patch from my webstone.com site.

  Posted to DotNetNuke (Forum) by JWhite on 12/19/2005

• Re: New Project type for VS2005 - compiles into 1 assembly by project

  No, for now, the core will be sticking with the model that was laid out in DNN 4. This has other benefits such as allowing the use of Visual Web Developer Express as a DNN development environment as well as other items such as seperating parts of the project into a library. Secondly, the new web project addon is not availible yet, and from what I understand it still is not an exact copy of the environment we used VS2003 so it would still require some changes.

  Posted to DotNetNuke (Forum) by JWhite on 12/19/2005

• Re: Open source guarantee?

  I'm pretty sure there's an old post of Shaun's from back in early 2003 that says that very thing (but I could be wrong), and knowing him for the past 2+ years I can assure you he has NO intentions of ever charging for the code itself. That said, the DNN license itself is your best protection. It states in no uncertain terms that you can do whatever you want with the source (other than claim copyright on it). Yes, a future version could, I suppose, come under a different license but I KNOW that Shaun

  Posted to DotNetNuke (Forum) by JWhite on 12/16/2005

• Re: Licence Question

  basically yes, with a few minor conditions. They cannot claim copyright on the code and the original DNN copyright must remain in tact. Additionally, they can not make any code changes and try to offer it as "DotNetNuke" since that name is trademarked.

  Posted to DotNetNuke (Forum) by JWhite on 12/13/2005

• Re: Concerns about viability of DNN

  pmaugust wrote: The events module... roadmap for September with enhancements I really need... then a delayed posting (not all that unexpected). But now December and still no ETA? And so far every other events module replacement I've tested has been either a major disappointment or lacks the functionality I need. And all the online hype about AVCalendar??? It's broke! And that's the shining star? I AM confused. I understand your frustration. I'll take the blame squarely on my shoulders for the Events

  Posted to DotNetNuke (Forum) by JWhite on 12/13/2005