xf2 why no push ?!

Discussion in 'XenForo' started by fixer, Aug 27, 2017.

  1. fixer

    fixer I'm Your Huckleberry

    259
    117
    +127
    Argh so now we are suppose to add 1....2...... or even 3 addons for the software to do something it should do out the gate.

    even if its just Push Bullet integration thats something , we don't even have browser alerts (like IPS has default btw)

    #disappointed
     
  2. haqzore

    haqzore Habitué

    1,394
    252
    +643
    Completely agree with you here.

    This is a major way forums lag behind in terms of engagement.

    At least IPC has browser alerts. Not great, but better than nothing.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • List
  3. Alfa1

    Alfa1 Moderator

    2,899
    1,177
    +1,771
    XF2.0 mainly offers parity. This was clear from the getgo. 2.1 is where the features will come in.
     
    • Informative! Informative! x 1
    • List
  4. Mouth

    Mouth Participant

    76
    58
    +25
    XF Devs have numerous times now said this is not correct anymore, that they've introduced several new features into the 2.0 release, and it's not about parity anymore. ;)
     
  5. Tracy Perry

    Tracy Perry Opinionated ass-hat

    4,345
    412
    +2,937
    XF 2 was TARGETED to have at a minimum feature parity. They also stated that they have added some additional features/changes/tweaks in.
    I know that Brogan has stated that (it's beyond feature parity) but he is not a XF DEV.
    The features/functions that have been added are what are typical between minor version upgrades... nothing that would be "earth shattering honestly. And to expect anything other than basic feature parity with minor tweaks/features at the 2.0 revision level is really unrealistic. None of what I've seen done with 2.0 I would class as major improvements. I would expect those to start with 2.1>.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Informative! Informative! x 1
    • List
  6. Alfa1

    Alfa1 Moderator

    2,899
    1,177
    +1,771
    There are some nice improvements in XF2. But its clear that 2.0 was never intended to be the waterfall feature release that most people expect from a major version. The XF2 has been trying to temper expectations over and over.
     
  7. Xon

    Xon Adherent

    260
    177
    +355
    Mobile push notifications either require infrastructure or support of opinionated (paid) external providers. I can understand why they haven't put something together since it means they need to support an external provider.
     
  8. Mouth

    Mouth Participant

    76
    58
    +25
    XF hasn't provided any indication or roadmap for XF 2.1+ features, so I'm keen to understand why people think it will bring major new features within core? Just as they tempered XF2.0 expectations for rough feature parity only, I think there's a lot of unsupported hype/expectations being placed on 2.1 too.

    Some new end-user features coming with XF2.0 include oEmbed, Whats New, Sticky Nav, Quick Thread/Poll, Thread Prompts, Keyboard Shortcuts, more Custom Fields Types, utf8mb4 Emoji's, new Rich Text Editor, native integration with more external authentication/account providers eg. LinkedIn, Widget system, and new Payment Framework with native integration for more providers. At some stage, it needs to be recognised/agreed if these are feature parity with XF1.5 and just a few tweaks, or considerable new features in line with what we saw with 1.3->1.4 and 1.4->1.5 releases.

    In any case, with the new payment framework including native integration with new vendors such as stripe and braintree, and more integration with external authentication/account providers having been developed for 2.0 you can see why some might not reasonably think it would have been more beneficial to have native push notifications integration with eg. OneSignal for 2.0 and bring stripe/braintree and/or more external authentication/accounts with 2.1
     
  9. Tracy Perry

    Tracy Perry Opinionated ass-hat

    4,345
    412
    +2,937
    I'm pretty sure that there's no "hype" being built on what 2.1 will bring, BUT what is being stated that a reasonable person would have read what they said and expected feature parity only with XF2.0. Said reasonable person would also expect any major improvements to come AFTER a stable 2.0 was released and anyone that expected otherwise was not being realistic and understanding what was told them.
    And others would think it would have been reasonable thought it would be beneficial to have a native app coded for the system, facial recognition, etc. Get my point? Anything ABOVE basic feature parity is gravy in 2.0. To expect a crap load of new feature-sets is unrealistic, as it would add to the development timeline.
    And yes, I know it just gets a few peoples goat that they don't give a road map... but honestly, name me the major paid script providers that currently provide a road map of their script in more than a generic sense.
     
    Last edited: Aug 29, 2017
  10. Maddox

    Maddox Moderator

    626
    347
    +415
    I agree with Tracy PerryTracy Perry with regards to no script provider giving access to a road map; up to a point. This has been my beef with both IPS and XF when they have new versions in the pipeline. Where money is involved there ought to be some kind of road map; this benefits both end users and developers.

    End users will have some knowledge as to what is to come as part of the core feature set and base their current and future expenditure on this (add-ons cost extra and the money may not be there). Developers who create add-ons for both platforms will know whether to develop an add-on or not; it would be pointless for a developer to create an add-on (with who knows how many hours of development work involved) if they knew in advance that what they were creating was going to be a core feature down the line.

    I believe, and no doubt many will disagree - but hey ho, that developers should issue a road map, in four parts:

    Definitely going add X feature (no need to give a precise date, but something along the lines of in the next update, or the one after, etc)
    Anticipated to add X feature (with provisos if they envisage long delays or issues)
    Possibly add X feature depending on how desired it is (the desire can be gauged from a poll or some other kind of research)
    Definitely NOT going to add X feature - which means add-on developers can sharpen their tools and get down to creating add-ons without the unknown of such a feature being added and negating their efforts.

    There's no real revelations in forum software so there is no 'amazing' secrets to withhold - it would take something extra special and non-forum-like to replace forums and that's just not forthcoming (at least not in the foreseeable future).

    So a road map has benefits all-around; end users benefit by being able to choose a script that fulfils their needs without unknown added expenditure required to give them what they need, developers benefit through not wasting their precious time that could be better used elsewhere, and the script providers benefit by making their intentions known and thereby attracting those sitting on the fence wondering on which side to fall. It's really a win-win for everyone. Shame that the script providers cannot see this.

    ;)
     
  11. Alfa1

    Alfa1 Moderator

    2,899
    1,177
    +1,771
    There are 4 reasons why I would expect it. Its still just an opinion and you know what they say about those. But here goes:
    1. The whole point of building a new framework is to be able to deliver new functionality quicker, better, more advanced and easier. It stands to reason that this new opportunity will be actualized.
    2. A rewrites takes years. Its reasonable to do a feature parity release along the way to reduce this time. To me it seems that's what 2.0 is.
    3. IPS feature release as well as the absence of XF feature releases have been killing XF growth. XF marketshare was on an amazing roll during the XF1.x releases. Once XF2 was announced and feature releases stopped, so did marketshare growth. IPS 4.2 with its amazing feature set has everybody and their dog moving to IPS. IPS can keep this up with future releases because they already rebuild their framework. And then there are other platforms eating away marketshare growth. Imagine how things would look for XF marketshare if IPS does a couple more releases like that. If XF wants to grow like before then the XF team needs to seriously up their game to close the glaring feature gap.
    4. XF 1.x releases were mostly waterfall features releases which implemented the most popular suggestions. We can expect the same approach for 2.x with the note that some of the most popular suggestions were skipped for xf1 because those were not possible on the xf1 framework.
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
    • Like Like x 2
    • List
  12. Mouth

    Mouth Participant

    76
    58
    +25
    And that's the crux. XF2.0 does include major new features, not just parity. And some people are not happy with the development focus of those new features, thinking they should have focuses that effort elsewhere on other end-user functionality. Because some people might have wanted push notifications before additional payment gateway native integrations, and others payment before push, doesn't make either side wrong and they should be negated for expressing their desire and disappointment.
     
  13. Tracy Perry

    Tracy Perry Opinionated ass-hat

    4,345
    412
    +2,937
    And that's an issue with just about anything. If the stuff that was added was of no real interest/need to someone, then they think that it would have been better addressed in other areas that pertain to them. I on the other hand only had the expectation of the same feature set that was in 1.x. Anything above that I am grateful for and then expect to see more drastic improvements in later versions.
    And as you pointed out... the payment gateway is ADDITIONAL... not a totally new sub-system, which is what a push (if talking using features like in Chris's push notifications add-on) system would entail.
     
  14. Mouth

    Mouth Participant

    76
    58
    +25
    Yes, and so many expect it - because nobody says otherwise, and we want to believe it because it has to happen to keep our communities relevant and current.. But if it doesn't come, because 3 developers cannot quickly close the "glaring feature gap" whilst also maintaining support requests, XF2 fixes, and XF1 updates, then everyone loses.
    Yes, for all the reasons you say. Confusion and unsurity bring volatility, speculation, and un-manged expectations. Whilst your competitors streak ahead and deliver what the customers actually want and need for their community. In core and natively, without relying on many 3rd party add-on devs many of whom are hacks and hobbyists.
     
  15. Mouth

    Mouth Participant

    76
    58
    +25
    No, the payment framework is all new from the ground-up, to allow easy integration of many different payment processors.
    And push notifications with OneSignal could have been done natively quite easily, as demonstrated by the add-on here.
     
  16. Tracy Perry

    Tracy Perry Opinionated ass-hat

    4,345
    412
    +2,937
    Basically extending what was already present.
    And I'm not that crazy about adding dependencies to outside services myself into core features if at all possible to prevent... but it's something to suggest for later versions/improvements. My point is EXPECTING it in the 2.0 version was (and is) unrealistic.
     
  17. Mouth

    Mouth Participant

    76
    58
    +25
  18. Tracy Perry

    Tracy Perry Opinionated ass-hat

    4,345
    412
    +2,937
    Maybe because the underlying code was easier to do with the planned upgrade?
    Honestly, I don't see what's so hard to understand about the fact they stated to expect only compatibility. Seems folks are getting their panties in a was because what WAS done was not what they wanted.
     
  19. Mouth

    Mouth Participant

    76
    58
    +25
    You're asking now? A few minutes ago you were staying it was just a basic extension.
    XF dev's say it's a complete new framework and would have required a seperate add-on or duplication of entire code classes.
    I guess you know better whether it was just a basic extensions or a major new feature with lots of development effort.
    I'll leave you to your opinion, I'm finding it too fluid and I'm not interested in sparking a debate over unsupported personal opinions.
    I will leave you with this though - because others have a different opinion or interest/requirement than you, doesn't make their opinions or requests "getting in their panties". When you negate people like that, it (to me) says more about the writer than the person being spoken about.
     
  20. Tracy Perry

    Tracy Perry Opinionated ass-hat

    4,345
    412
    +2,937
    No, the problem I have is the unreasonable expectations when it was very plainly stated to expect feature parity. I guess some people have a hard time understanding the fact that anything above that is more than what they were told to expect. The process of the developers decision making on what they felt was more important (or even easier) to implement in the 2.0 version is apparently a sore point.. and yes, I will tend to "negate" people that expect more than what they were told to expect. Just because they DID add some new features is above what was stated to expect in the version is an improvement over what was told to be expected and those features were not what some wanted does not negate the fact that the level that they advised to be present was feature parity.

    I see these comparisons to IPS 4.2... well, guess what - IPS 4.0 did NOT have the stuff in it that 4.2 did. It took many revisions before it got those features.

    It is NOT an "opinion" that the developers stated (and very clearly) that they were shooting for 1.x feature parity. There is plenty that they "could" have added in, but that would have extended the development time.

    Nope, not "asking" but presenting a point to think about. I don't keep up much over on the XF site any longer since I'm not running the scripts (only using my IPS one). My point is, the code refactoring may have allowed an easier integration with the feature-set. And it probably also allows an easier integration of the features that you desire... but they do have to make a decision on what is rolled into the 2.0 one, and apparently you disagree with what they decided on.
     
Verification:
Draft saved Draft deleted