Surely about "cookie mentioning" is easy to find a solution. But the problem is still there... and the solution cannot be a joomla one, obviously.over wrote: Nothing is mentioned about allowing session cookies.
![Sad :(](./images/smilies/icon_sad.gif)
Surely about "cookie mentioning" is easy to find a solution. But the problem is still there... and the solution cannot be a joomla one, obviously.over wrote: Nothing is mentioned about allowing session cookies.
Joomla 1.0 to Joomla 1.5 and followed by Joomla 1.6/7 were all migrations, needed since Joomla was written from ground up. Joomla 1.5 is now at version 1.5.25 = 25 releases which include bugfixes and security fixes. Upgrades within the versions are simply overwriting the files via ftp...piece of cake. If one runs now Joomla 1.5 and needs to go to 2.5 it will be a full migration because of the code base rewritten after 3 years (!) Upgrade 1.7 to 2.5 is a simple mouse click in the admin backend.....The current versions have fully automated upgrade checks and fully one-click upgrades for extensions. 2.5 is a Long Term Support release and will last long. Nothing to worry for new users going now with Joomlaherdoftwo wrote:what seems to me to be a huge drawback
but i think the 2.5 beta is much simplier than the first versions, starting with "viewing" staight hair gets curly with the 1.7 LOL!HuGu wrote:i have not finished understanding 1.7 yet and my little brain seems to burst to understand 2.5 and beta LOL!
you should check that with the extension developerHuGu wrote:Is joomla 2.5 and iproperty 1.7 not compatible?
leolam wrote:HuGu,
This is not a forum to post your individual issues with the release. You should post that in the proper forum. Also note that the 2.5.Beta1 version is not meant to be used on a production (live) site as clearly stated
Leo
HuGu wrote:Dear All,
I am a dummy in web developing.
Where could i post for support, which part of the joomla site?
Thank,
HuGu
My friend, yhis points to google groups, and i think that the truest information will be available on joomla.org itself... plz dont scare us..... :PJo80 wrote:Hello Friends, here the (bad) news
New release schedule: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic ... discussion
January 10: Release 2.5 Beta 2 -- this should include all of the smart search fixes and batch operation fixes
January 17: Release 2.5.0 RC1 -- this should be exactly the same as 2.5.0 except possibly for some last-minute bug fixes
January 24: Release 2.5.0 -- Hooray!
Oh gosh..... a dual news... good and bad at the same time....abernyte wrote:Considering it came from Mark Dexter via the BugSquad, I think that we can place a reliable flag on that info.
My friend, you should`nt eat bees, try it with antsZ9iT wrote:bees are running in my stomach![]()
...
Heavy? That's funny.fizyka wrote: Dear Joomla Development Team please remove Mootools and replace it with jQuery, jQ is more flexability and modern, Mootols is heavy, slow and no one use it anymore.
Hahahah.... its not due to that... its just the anxiety for joomla 2.5 GAJo80 wrote:bees are running in my stomach![]()
...
My friend, you should`nt eat bees, try it with ants![]()
I wont argue which is better, but yeah, its a brilliant idea to include both of them...fizyka wrote:J2.5 will be much better than 1.7, but I have very idea for J project that will makes J even better.
My idea is:
Dear Joomla Development Team please remove Mootools and replace it with jQuery, jQ is more flexability and modern, Mootols is heavy, slow and no one use it anymore.
That would mean the core would have to maintain two copies of all scripts we write, not to mention writing substitutes with exactly the same functionality for other JS things we use that rely on MooTools (SqueezeBox and FancyUpload come to my mind) - not gonna happen.Z9iT wrote: and if not possible to run simultaneously, then there could be an option to choose one during installation...![]()
![]()
There can be two separate releases for that, however you are still right... if the work can be achieved by mootools then why should we bang heads....realityking wrote: That would mean the core would have to maintain two copies of all scripts we write
Agreed... perhaps the best option...What can be done is that someone (as an extension) writes a plug-in that overrides JHtmlBehavior