How to bridge SMF and Joomla 1.5

[angsikod]

I just migrated from Joomla 1.0.12 to Joomla 1.5. Could I know where to get the SMF bridge for Joomla 1.5?

Thanks

[PhilTaylor-Prazgod]

The official SMF bridge has been removed because of the (perceived) license in-compatibility.

As far as I know there are no working bridges for SMF and Joomla 1.5

[angsikod]

Thanks. So for this forum, it is using SMF login without the bridge, right?

[PhilTaylor-Prazgod]

That is correct.  It just has a clever template to make you think its part of the Joomla sites...

[angsikod]

oic. it is indeed a clever template. I am fooled. 

btw, I am impressed by how well the smf integrates with the joomla. Is it through wrapper?

[PhilTaylor-Prazgod]

AFAIK This forum is NOT integrated with Joomla in ANY way - there is no wrapper, no bridge and no interaction between joomla and this forum.

[ot2sen]

Mod note ot2sen: Moving thread from Extensions Directory Forum --> to 3rd Party Extensions / Integration Development / SMF Forum

[dukeofgaming]

It is not clever, since one has to register and login 2 times on the site =/

[robbievk]

if they actually could register or login on the frontpage that is...

[Livebox]

There was an Bridge in development but Simplemachines decided to not go fetter with this development. There Bridge is not fit in the GPL licence of J!. Both J! and Simplemachines are using different licences and this is the reason. So we have to respect the decision off J! and Simplemachines.

More info about this you will find here
http://forum.joomla.org/index.php/topic,194373.0.html

[Asphyx]

It is not clever, since one has to register and login 2 times on the site =/

Once in a lifetime!

Simply click the remember me option to make the lifetime cookie and you don't have to login twice or at all on either the website side or the SMF side.

If all you want a bridge for is to get that functionality I would remind you that you take a big risk to login issues on both sides because the system being used doesn't work very well.
And can't be easily undone either!

[shawn122]

Simply click the remember me option to make the lifetime cookie and you don't have to login twice or at all on either the website side or the SMF side.

If all you want a bridge for is to get that functionality I would remind you that you take a big risk to login issues on both sides because the system being used doesn't work very well.
And can't be easily undone either!

Not quite....Orstio's bridge worked very well with no hacks to anything.  Some sites need this functionality and having 2 logins is a pain.  Not to mention people who use the internet at libraries and other public places as the "once in a lifetime" argument wouldn't mean anything.

[Asphyx]

Not quite....Orstio's bridge worked very well with no hacks to anything.  Some sites need this functionality and having 2 logins is a pain.  Not to mention people who use the internet at libraries and other public places as the "once in a lifetime" argument wouldn't mean anything.

Except maybe the Database...

And your library argument is very weak...
You WANT to force logins for both there...
You wouldn't want someone to go to a Joomla site, leave the machine and then have the next person able to post on the forum as you because you logged into something you didn't even go to and act as you!

Cookies are machine specific so in the library it is a security issue to log someone into something they didn't go to or didn't log into themselves!
At home they would login and save the cookie permanent and they would be done. In a public accessible machine you do not want to save any cookies or log anyone into a site automatically under any conditions!
So in those RARE circumstances logging in twice or forcing it is actually protecting the users account!

Orstio's Hack uses session data. If you log into Joomla with his bridge you are also logged into SMF as well.
Not just that but they get full access to your profile, change password functions and anything else you can do via SMF.

The Library scenario only PROVES my point that this whole theory of saving users trouble of using their username and password is just a really cool thing that actually compromises security and stability!
Want proof just uninstall the bridge and see how your Joomla Login works...

[shawn122]

moot point...

...since users want it...The community wants it..the majority wants it..

You saying that its a waste time doesn't change that fact.  You can sit at your computer and type until you're fingers hurt but USERS liked the bridge and if Joomla/SMF can't get along...they are going to lose a whole chunk of users.

[Asphyx]

Why do they want it? Is it because the forum can't operate without it?
Or is it simply plain laziness?
Maybe they like less security?

Why they want it if you ask me is the key.
And the reason they want it is moot. I should downgrade my security and stability because some user is too lazy to type in his user:pass combo twice in a year? And just because ONE user likes to leave huge security holes in MY system because he is too lazy to login twice at a library I should compromise the safety of the 1000 other users I have?

What the user wants is MOOT!
What the site owner wants is key!
And if they are told sure I can bridge users if you don't mind leaving all of them open to privacy and security issues I bet most would say...you know what let them login twice!

After the login the only thing the two systems need to share is data...and you don't need a bridge to put posts from SMF intoi Joomla or start threads from Joomla into SMF. Just read and write to the database!

[AmyStephen]

Shawn -

What in the world are you hoping to accomplish? You have not posted in the J! forums since January. Then, you show up July 31 advertising Mambo for the SMF bridge.

hmmm...the bridge still works with mambo should anyone be interested

I reminded you that information was already in the thread - and that SMF is also sharing this option.

Yes, Shawn, the official SMF announcement for discontinuing the SMF Joomla! bridge listed Mambo as an option.

You return on the 5th announcing talks have stopped between SMF and Joomla!.

Are talks ongoing with SMF?  From my understanding things have stopped..

I ask you why you are saying this as it isn't my understanding.

Hm.  Have not heard that. Where did you see this? Last statements I have heard from both teams was that they were talking.

You respond with the boat sinking comment.

I also don't believe SMF or Joomla will work out their differences...that boat has already sunk.

Now, you want to remind us that everyone wants it - but that the bridge is not being built because of interpersonal disagreements?

moot point...

...since users want it...The community wants it..the majority wants it..

You saying that its a waste time doesn't change that fact.  You can sit at your computer and type until you're fingers hurt but USERS liked the bridge and if Joomla/SMF can't get along...they are going to lose a whole chunk of users.

I am going to emphasize for YOU how very important this bridge is - people want it, Shawn. Without the 1.0.13 bridge, Joomla! users cannot upgrade to secure levels OR they are forced to use Mambo, a CMS they did not freely choose.

It sounds to me like you have some inside information on this situation. What is going on? Who told you talks broke down? How can we get them started again? Why are you posting in here, again, about the SMF issue? HELP! Don't argue with Mike! HELP! This is IMPORTANT!

I want some links, Shawn. Or names - who told you what?
Amy

[shawn122]

1) No inside information Amy.
2) Not advertising Mambo

My only issue is with Asphyx saying you don't need a bridge.  Not here to cause trouble..lord knows I don't have time for that.

[AmyStephen]

1) No inside information Amy.
2) Not advertising Mambo

My only issue is with Asphyx saying you don't need a bridge.  Not here to cause trouble..lord knows I don't have time for that.

Of course you need a bridge! And, of course we would love to have SMF bridge. But, Shawn, to my knowledge, the talks have *not* stopped. I could be wrong, but I want to see a post of someone saying that before I start to say it myself. I hope you understand.

Now, Andy Miller *is* building a bridge between Joomla! v 1.5 and phpBB3. That is not SMF but it is an excellent forum. Hopefully, there will be more choices in our future, not less.

Thanks for your kind response.
Amy

[AmyStephen]

I keep digging around. I just noticed an SMF bridge for Drupal, tonight, and have feelers out for how that is constructed.  Maybe they have found a GPL-compliant method for bridging.

I have to admit. The more I look, the more frustrated I get. Is SMF working on this? Or, are they just waiting for Joomla! to provide the solution? What about the JoomlaHack bridge? Is that bridge violating SMF's license?

This is the list of facts circling in my brain:

SMF has repeatedly said they are not distributing Joomla!'s bridge because it's illegal and they don't distribute illegal bridges.

And yet, SMF is distributing a WordPress SMF bridge.  WordPress license says: "Most plugins use the GPL license used by WordPress or a license compatible with the GPL." OK. Same as Joomla!. I am *quite* certain Matt Mullenweg did not "grant exceptions."

Also, SMF also distributes an XOOPS SMF Bridge. Here is a copy of the License file that *must* be included in XOOPS modules. OK. It appears even stricter than Joomla!. But, who knows, maybe they don't care? Maybe they have an FAQ somewhere that authorizes people to do what they want. Does someone know?

The thing that keeps gnawing at my brain is that Joomla! never did approach SMF and ask they discontinue the bridge. Joomla! announced it will take time for solutions. Never did Joomla! demand SMF come into compliance. Instead Joomla! said, "We're not going to make any sudden moves because we know that a lot of people are relying on us to maintain some stability and meet expectations."

SMF independently contacted and communicated with the FSF via email. In that email exchange, a GPL application - a bridge - and a non-GPL compliant application were discussed. Joomla! was not mentioned. Joomla! was not involved. FSF indicated such a bridge described in the email by SMF would not be compliant. That is true for the WordPress bridge SMF distributes. And, that is true for the XOOPS bridge SMF distributes. (Forget about the others for now!) To my knowledge, Joomla! saw the FSF email exchange at the same time as everyone else.

So, why suddenly pull the Joomla! bridge? And, why a few days after Joomla! v 1.0.13 is announced as a security release? And why suggest Mambo as a substitute CMS *in* the post announcing the discontinuation of Joomla!'s bridge?

Dang. Doesn't everyone agree, it's really not cool to leave people in the lurch like that? For reasons that don't add up?

So, if it's like Shawn says - SMF pulled the bridge and refuses to work on it because "Joomla/SMF can't get along" then, fine. Say it! That I could respect and that I could understand and everyone would know the answer and be free to find solutions.
Amy


Shawn - are you looking to start an endless and noisy debate? If this turns into a debate about whether or not a bridge is "needed" then it becomes more and more unlikely the problem will ever be solved. Is that what you want, Shawn? Please, leave it, Shawn. Don't egg it on and make it worse. There are a lot of people who need this bridge and deserve our support.

[shawn122]

Listen Amy...with all due respect..I WANT to see a bridge.  Who am I egging on?!?!
You know what forget it..

I will go back to "lurking" on the forums as you said...seems like its better if nothing is said and just let Asphyx talk his nonsense.

[Wendy]

Have removed posts containing inappropriate language as well as a post quoting as such. 

Everyone, please keep this discussion civil and on topic. 

Thank You,
Wendy

[AzzX]

I keep digging around. I just noticed an SMF bridge for Drupal, tonight, and have feelers out for how that is constructed.  Maybe they have found a GPL-compliant method for bridging.

Interesting discussion on this very issue at Drupal http://drupal.org/node/48185
The section of the drupal FAQ in question: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.htm ... AndPlugins

Explains why they do not distribute Tinymce editor with Drupal as it also is not compatible with gpl.

[AmyStephen]

Nice find! Thanks for that link to Jeff Eaton's post on the GPL. He is very informed on the subject. I had not found that and it is, indeed, good reference.

Thanks much!
Amy

[motokochan]

Lets see how long before my message is removed for being "offensive"...

SMF has repeatedly said they are not distributing Joomla!'s bridge because it's illegal and they don't distribute illegal bridges.

And yet, SMF is distributing a WordPress SMF bridge.  WordPress license says: "Most plugins use the GPL license used by WordPress or a license compatible with the GPL." OK. Same as Joomla!. I am *quite* certain Matt Mullenweg did not "grant exceptions."

Please stop lying. Unless having a link to an external source contributed by an outside party is considered distribution, we aren't distributing anything for WordPress. It was even mentioned that we wouldn't be doing anything for that system because they don't grant exceptions. Fabricating evidence only makes you look bad.

Also, SMF also distributes an XOOPS SMF Bridge. Here is a copy of the License file that *must* be included in XOOPS modules. OK. It appears even stricter than Joomla!. But, who knows, maybe they don't care? Maybe they have an FAQ somewhere that authorizes people to do what they want. Does someone know?

Since this whole drama started, we have been more active in seeking explicit approval for our bridges. The Simple Machines team has discussed the licensing issues with each project and got approval for our bridges, including the Xoops one. If a project owns all their code, they are able to grant such exceptions.

The thing that keeps gnawing at my brain is that Joomla! never did approach SMF and ask they discontinue the bridge. Joomla! announced it will take time for solutions. Never did Joomla! demand SMF come into compliance. Instead Joomla! said, "We're not going to make any sudden moves because we know that a lot of people are relying on us to maintain some stability and meet expectations."

Do you speak for the Joomla! team now? Also, what do you expect to happen when a change in direction is announced, including retroactively?

So, why suddenly pull the Joomla! bridge? And, why a few days after Joomla! v 1.0.13 is announced as a security release? And why suggest Mambo as a substitute CMS *in* the post announcing the discontinuation of Joomla!'s bridge?

Coincidental timing, nothing more. There certainly wasn't a conspiracy, please don't try and make one. Mambo was suggested as it was the CMS most like Joomla! 1.0, given the history of the project. Certainly, the users are welcome to use whatever they want.

Dang. Doesn't everyone agree, it's really not cool to leave people in the lurch like that? For reasons that don't add up?

So, if it's like Shawn says - SMF pulled the bridge and refuses to work on it because "Joomla/SMF can't get along" then, fine. Say it! That I could respect and that I could understand and everyone would know the answer and be free to find solutions.
Amy

It is bad to leave people in a situation like this, which is why we have been working with one of the Joomla! team members on how to work out a replacement bridge that can be used without causing license issues. Certainly, Simple Machines is willing to work at a solution if the Joomla! team is willing to do so to.

[chadness]

Lets see how long before my message is removed for being "offensive"...

I'm not sure why you think that's done here.  The only removed posts were ones that contained name calling with "swear words".

ANyways, thanks for coming by and clearing up some misconceptions.

[Asphyx]

IF there is still movement on trying to find a solution and a bridge that will meet the license criteria for Joomla then there is no need to pull the current Bridge distribution until such time as the better solution is available.

There is such a thing in legal circles called "Good Faith".

If a Violation of some article of Law is discovered and steps are underway to correct that violation then the original violation in most cases is dismissed and allowed to remain until the solution has been implemented.

I see no reason why SM had to pull the bridge at this time. They could have left it the way it was and put the effort they have wasted on discussing it to find a compatible method. The only thing this pulled distribution has done was create controversy and scared users of both SMF and Joomla.
Not the best situation for either of them. New users now think you can't even run SMF on the same server as Joomla...They don't all understand.

People are simply not going to change their CMS just to get a forum bridge. The ones who do don't really want a CMS they want a Forum!

I suggest people stop trying to revisit the history and start getting down to creating the future. Or there will be no future for either product!

[AmyStephen]

Lets see how long before my message is removed for being "offensive"...

SMF has repeatedly said they are not distributing Joomla!'s bridge because it's illegal and they don't distribute illegal bridges.

And yet, SMF is distributing a WordPress SMF bridge.  WordPress license says: "Most plugins use the GPL license used by WordPress or a license compatible with the GPL." OK. Same as Joomla!. I am *quite* certain Matt Mullenweg did not "grant exceptions."

Please stop lying. Unless having a link to an external source contributed by an outside party is considered distribution, we aren't distributing anything for WordPress. It was even mentioned that we wouldn't be doing anything for that system because they don't grant exceptions. Fabricating evidence only makes you look bad.

Be careful. When you accuse someone of lying, it's pretty serious. The link to the download is in my quote. SMF distributes a bridge to WordPress. If someone asked "Where do you get the SMF bridge for WordPress" the answer would be "you get it in the SMF forums - that is where it is distributed."

People who know me well know I am always extremely careful in what I say. I do not see value in pointing fingers at people - it's not helpful. I try to illuminate what I see happening and I *always* try to clarify issues with facts.

I hope you feel better having personally attacked me. I hope it helps end users who cannot upgrade to Joomla! v 1.0.13 since you called me a name. I hope that the bridge is closer to completion now that my character has been called into question. If any of those things have occurred, then you did the right thing.

Amy

[motokochan]

Be careful. When you accuse someone of lying, it's pretty serious. The link to the download is in my quote. SMF distributes a bridge to WordPress. If someone asked "Where do you get the SMF bridge for WordPress" the answer would be "you get it in the SMF forums - that is where it is distributed."

I see no file on our server linked on that topic, however I do see a link to someone's private site that they posted. If there are attachments or other files on our server, please indicate the exact post and I'll investigate. If merely linking to another site that contains a file counts as distribution, please come out and say that directly.

I honestly can't think that merely talking about something in a location counts as that place distributing the material (unless you are like the MPAA/RIAA and argue that some torrent sites are distributing their works, although they can at least point at something downloaded from that site). I suppose under your argument, if a Google search result page also links to the site that actually has the file, Google is distributing too.

People who know me well know I am always extremely careful in what I say. I do not see value in pointing fingers at people - it's not helpful. I try to illuminate what I see happening and I *always* try to clarify issues with facts.

I try and clarify things with facts too. Perhaps our definitions of distribution are very different. My fact is that based on my definition of distribution (actually hosting the file), the fact is that we aren't distributing anything.

[Sundog_AK]

It is bad to leave people in a situation like this, which is why we have been working with one of the Joomla! team members on how to work out a replacement bridge that can be used without causing license issues. Certainly, Simple Machines is willing to work at a solution if the Joomla! team is willing to do so to.

FWIW, it is good to hear from SMF that SMF/Joomla are still actively trying to resolve the bridge issue.

Chris

[infograf768]

As a complementary source of info, please read here
http://forum.joomla.org/index.php?topic=201682.new#new

Any further debate here will not solve the issue at stake.
I suggest all to wait for the results of Joomla/SMF discussion, hoping for the best.