Thoughts on Core Software vs. Plugins

  • Hello Everyone,
    I've been looking at using Burning Board for a while now. I've used my fair share of forum software over past years. As of late I see that there is a new trend, especially with requests on this forum for features. In my past experience, forum software has been overloaded with features and have caused problems. In my opinion forum software should stick to it's true mission and purpose. In my opinion, in the case of Woltlab you have the core software (WCF) and then you have the forum software in this case (Burning Board). The core piece of software should stick to what it needs to do. Beyond that initial piece of software, the rest should be plugins or applications..

    1. You add more code and scripts for features, some customers might not even need.
    2. You could potentially increase the requirements needed to run the software.
    3. You've introduced features, some might not want to have, in some cases forcing them to use it. Sure, you can implement something to turn the feature on or off. If you do this, there is more code to be added and you still have the code sitting, doing nothing.

    There are some community members that keep requesting features to be added that not only are slowing down development time, but also referencing my thoughts above. I've decided not yet to purchase Burning Board for this reason. I am being cautious due to what I currently see taking place in this community. I would be interested to hear from some of the team ( @Alexander Ebert ). Out of most software I see Burning Board as the most promising and hope the Woltlab team keeps up the amazing work.

  • Likewise some people cannot code or do not have the funds to obtain plugins and as such require the developers to add features they feel keep the software modern and current. If nothing is added the software would soon become defunct and relying on other 3rd parties to move it forward is not a good business model for Woltlab imo.

  • Hello Everyone,
    I've been looking at using Burning Board for a while now. I've used my fair share of forum software over past years. As of late I see that there is a new trend, especially with requests on this forum for features. In my past experience, forum software has been overloaded with features and have caused problems. In my opinion forum software should stick to it's true mission and purpose. In my opinion, in the case of Woltlab you have the core software (WCF) and then you have the forum software in this case (Burning Board). The core piece of software should stick to what it needs to do. Beyond that initial piece of software, the rest should be plugins or applications..

    1. You add more code and scripts for features, some customers might not even need.
    2. You could potentially increase the requirements needed to run the software.
    3. You've introduced features, some might not want to have, in some cases forcing them to use it. Sure, you can implement something to turn the feature on or off. If you do this, there is more code to be added and you still have the code sitting, doing nothing.

    There are some community members that keep requesting features to be added that not only are slowing down development time, but also referencing my thoughts above. I've decided not yet to purchase Burning Board for this reason. I am being cautious due to what I currently see taking place in this community. I would be interested to hear from some of the team ( @Alexander Ebert ). Out of most software I see Burning Board as the most promising and hope the Woltlab team keeps up the amazing work.

    A good point. I used to own XenForo and later sold my license on. One thing I dislike about that software is too much emphasis gets put on filling in missing features with mods. But then most mods usually cost extra bumping the overall price up and most are coded by 3rd party developers meaning 'ANYTHING' can happen over time using them... developer of it packs in supporting it.

    So always prefer to see a good balance of features included stock, rather than having to rely of 3rd party mods to fill in missing things that are supported one day, abandoned the next. Then there is always the 'quality of the mod' used to fill in missing features if not coded by the same forum software developers. Another issue for me with using mods.

    Einmal editiert, zuletzt von Macondiana (15. Februar 2015 um 13:41)

  • Likewise some people cannot code or do not have the funds to obtain plugins and as such require the developers to add features they feel keep the software modern and current. If nothing is added the software would soon become defunct and relying on other 3rd parties to move it forward is not a good business model for Woltlab imo.

    Nor is slowing down the development of a gold release trying to fill in all requests coming from a few customers, which is @Justin89s main point. A modern and current forum software is not one that's bloated with any sort of built-in feature, but one that's stable and fast (a well-optimized script) and - most importantly - secure: a requirement of paramount importance nowadays.

    When I don't have the funds to obtain plugins right away, I usually start saving, and when I have enough I buy them. I don't expect, nor demand that the forum developer includes them for me.

    The art is - as always - to balance it correctly

    So always prefer to see a good balance of features included stock, rather than having to rely of 3rd party mods to fill in missing things that are supported one day, abandoned the next

    You both make a valid point - balance is the key - and I agree. However, I see no balance if a main app is bloated with several features that cannot be disable in ACP, and which could be easily filled in by 3d party developers.

  • A good point. I used to own XenForo and later sold my license on. One thing I dislike about that software is too much emphasis gets put on filling in missing features with mods. But then most mods usually cost extra bumping the overall price up and most are coded by 3rd party developers meaning 'ANYTHING' can happen over time using them... developer of it packs in supporting it.

    So always prefer to see a good balance of features included stock, rather than having to rely of 3rd party mods to fill in missing things that are supported one day, abandoned the next. Then there is always the 'quality of the mod' used to fill in missing features if not coded by the same forum software developers. Another issue for me with using mods.

    One of the reasons why I started looking at Woltlab Burning Board, while I was still with XenForo and active within their community, was because of it's lack of features. I had over 100+ plug-ins / add-ons to fill their large gapping void. The cost for that was insane. Later when they released a more feature product, I was still installing over 50+ add-on to cover basic features.

    Another reason was their development there was also very hostel (not friendly). When you are developing for the same product everyone else is developing for, you are bound to run into some commonality regarding code. X code is the only way to produce Z result. I call this universal standard code.

    A simple example of "universal standard code" is if you wanted to have bold text in HTML you would use <b> </b> or sometimes <strong> </strong>. There are no other options to make your text bold in html.

    On XenForo using common code could easily get you into trouble. You had to also be careful of developer notes. If you note was simple for example /* Fix space for X addon */ that simple note could get you into trouble. If your used the color #000000 you would be told you need to change it to #000001. If you had the space of 4px you needed to change it to 5px.

    Everything had to be micromanaged in order to avoid another developer from claiming such stupidity. I have in the past made things for vBulletin, phpBB, Simple Machine Forum, IP.Board, Pro Board, uBB, Word Press, Buddy Press, FluxBB, and only XenForo did I and others (I wasn't alone) face such stupid problems.

    And I'll ask you. Do these look identical?


    If you compared them code wise, they each share 80% of the CORE code from XenForo itself (not each other). And as you can see they are clearly NOT identical.

  • One of the reasons why I started looking at Woltlab Burning Board, while I was still with XenForo and active within their community, was because of it's lack of features. I had over 100+ plug-ins / add-ons to fill their large gapping void. The cost for that was insane. Later when they released a more feature product, I was still installing over 50+ add-on to cover basic features.

    Expecting a forum developer to include any sort of feature each user would deem as "basic" would be unmanageable and delay the release of future updates even further in order to assure stability. It'd be like crying because the car you'd like to buy doesn't have all accessories you wanted included in the basic model.

  • Expecting a forum developer to include any sort of feature each user would deem as "basic" would be unmanageable and delay the release of future updates even further in order to assure stability. It'd be like crying because the car you'd like to buy doesn't have all accessories you wanted included in the basic model.

    I define basic as what every basic model has in every (all) competing brands. Airbags for example are included in all base model cars from Ford, Toyota, BMW, ect.. ect... Airbag are a standard feature in every make and model and brand name. That would be a standard feature.

    An example for forum software would be the reply button, for example. We could also include in that list avatars, smilies, ect... All basic core functions of any standard forum software. XenForo was and still is missing basic standard feature that have been universally adapted by all other developments. It's like buying a car without airbags.

    This forum is the help forum. I do not see anyone in this thread needing help. What I do see is the regular group of "fan boys" using this opportunity to attempt to promote another competitor.

    I will not follow up ... I will not reply further...

    Einmal editiert, zuletzt von Aslan (15. Februar 2015 um 17:30)

  • I define basic as what every basic model has in every (all) competing brands. Airbags for example are included in all base model cars from Ford, Toyota, BMW, ect.. ect... Airbag are a standard feature in every make and model and brand name. That would be a standard feature.

    An example for forum software would be the reply button, for example. We could also include in that list avatars, smilies, ect... All basic core functions of any standard forum software.

    This forum is the help forum. I do not see anyone in this thread needing help. What I do see is the regular group of "fan boys" using this opportunity to attempt to promote another competitor.

    You are mistaken. There isn't any "fan boy" here, but course, as per your latest trend, if someone expresses something you disagree with, you feel entitled to judge and label them. Remember that other people might have other views on life, and you need to accept them without diminish them only because you see things differently. That is indeed a "basic" civil requirement someone must possess if they want to coexist with others in a community - something you lack, clearly.

    The basic features you used as example are already there, and were always there in wbb, and not certainly because there was a public outcry - don't forget, this is still a forum software we are talking about, and not life-threatening events. There is no need to stomp feet and feel outraged if a software doesn't include all you want.

    Also, the OP is a prospect customer expressing his views on forum software developments and trends within this community. To tag this thread as an attempt to "promote another competitor" really shows your shortsightedness and intolerance.

  • Adam will eventually hate wbb because they will say no to him enough times to reach a magical threshold in which he now hates the software. It is a provable track record of a love to hate cycle he has. While he has some great ideas the approach is intolerant of others thoughts and wishes. He thinks he is the only customer.

    • Offizieller Beitrag

    There are two different aspects we look at before even considering adding a feature to the core:

    • Technical reasons
    • Common demand

    There isn't much that falls into the first category, the most remarkable ones are the memcached and (not yet available to public) elasticsearch support, both are provide a solution for large forums. This is pretty much the only specialization we're doing towards large forums, because in general all features in the software are designed with big data in mind.

    The second category is a bit more complex, mostly because a common demand does not justify a feature on its own, it is basically just an indication for something to consider. Whenever we evaluate a feature that gets requested sufficiently often, we look at the potential use across our entire customer base and not just the vocal ones. Next we have a strict policy that requires all features to work smoothly regardless of the amount of data it has to work with, for example if feature X is super fancy but gets extremely slow when it comes to a few hundreds of thousands of posts (or more, applies to comparable data sets), then it will not be implemented.

    Also the fact that a feature is present in other softwares is again just an indication, but not a reason. In regards to @'Adam Howard''s example, airbags are not a world-wide standard feature (e.g. cars in India mostly have none), but they're an implicit standard in Europe and North America, furthermore airbags are not even an requirement to be able to sell a car in these markets. Yet his example isn't entirely wrong, because it might cause customers to expect that feature and not fulfilling this wish could lead to a loss of revenue. After all everyone at WoltLab needs to make a living, so adding feature X can be crucial to remain a viable competitor.

    All in all, adding a new feature to the core is a long process and involves a lot of thinking before it will (or will not) be implemented. By the way, the above explanation does not include the aspect of having more code to contain and potentially improve, which is yet another thing one has to take into account.

    Looking at our framework, we have a great plugin system allowing customers to easily extend the software to fill the gaps, thus we can focus on the features that matter most. We have no intention to turn our software into a feature galore backed by a giant pile of unmaintainable code.

  • Likewise some people cannot code or do not have the funds to obtain plugins and as such require the developers to add features they feel keep the software modern and current.

    I agree with you to a certain extent. I've been there many times and have struggled with the same thing. I've had to compensate somehow in the past for features I didn't have and plan that out for the future. But it reaches a point as @rafix73 said that, something needs to be done if it effects the overall development time or performance of the product.

    So always prefer to see a good balance of features included stock, rather than having to rely of 3rd party mods to fill in missing things that are supported one day, abandoned the next.

    This is a great point! I've seen this a lot in the past and I'm sure every forum owner has had this problem at one time or another. This can be overcome with custom development, which is not only costly but also time consuming. I agree that it is nice to get an overall feature packed product, but not at the expense of requirements or performance of the product.

    A simple example of "universal standard code" is if you wanted to have bold text in HTML you would use <b> </b> or sometimes <strong> </strong>. There are no other options to make your text bold in html

    This is standard HTML. Of course behind any web based product you're going to have standard HTML, CSS, JavaScript, or other JS Libraries. Yes, they might all have their similarities, but if you look at the back-end, some are almost completely different. Then you have the company or developers style, type of development, and ideas. For you to sit there and say that 80% of the code is the same, is completely inaccurate.

    I define basic as what every basic model has in every (all) competing brands. Airbags for example are included in all base model cars from Ford, Toyota, BMW, ect.. ect... Airbag are a standard feature in every make and model and brand name. That would be a standard feature.

    This is a good point and I agree with you with the fact that as a competing brand, if you see something other competitors have it is worth while considering it for your own product within your niche.

    This forum is the help forum. I do not see anyone in this thread needing help. What I do see is the regular group of "fan boys" using this opportunity to attempt to promote another competitor.

    Yes, this is the help forum. I am a potential customer who wanted feedback from more than just the WoltLab team. If you post under the "Pre-sales Forum" only a WoltLab team member can reply. A customer community has a lot of influence over a product, which is why it is worth while to get feedback from everyone. You do not have any proper respect and are disrespecting everyone in this community, including current customers and potential new customers. I do not appreciate your disrespect towards me. I have not mentioned one competitor or other product in any of my posts. I had a couple questions and wanted feedback from the community.

    Looking at our framework, we have a great plugin system allowing customers to easily extend the software to fill the gaps, thus we can focus on the features that matter most. We have no intention to turn our software into a feature galore backed by a giant pile of unmaintainable code.

    I completely agree with everything you've said.

    Einmal editiert, zuletzt von Justin89 (16. Februar 2015 um 01:18)

  • This is standard HTML. Of course behind any web based product you're going to have standard HTML, CSS, JavaScript, or other JS Libraries. Yes, they might all have their similarities, but if you look at the back-end, some are almost completely different. Then you have the company or developers style, type of development, and ideas. For you to sit there and say that 80% of the code is the same, is completely inaccurate.

    You statement only holds 100% true if you are NOT coding for the same development. When everyone is coding for the same development, you are going to run into some base core code that that is commonly shared and unavoidable, because it is inherently from the core development.

    Attached is a comparison from 2 different styles from 2 different developers (I picked at random). I am not going to name which styles or which developers, because they are completely different, and it is not my intention to start any drama with anyone. Only to prove the basic point that when everyone is developing for the same development, you will indeed inherent the use of common code between them.

    WHITE notes the same.


    Now obviously, in this example it is not 80%. That's because the developers had gone to great lengths to change the overall layout of the stock style. But this is still a significant amount of common shared code that was inherent from the core. If I had picked styles where the developers had only changed a few colors and replaced a few images, keeping more to stock style, you would of course have more common code (to Woltlab's credit, more developers here seem to get away from the default).

    Einmal editiert, zuletzt von Aslan (16. Februar 2015 um 09:21)

  • You statement only holds 100% true if you are NOT coding for the same development. When everyone is coding for the same development, you are going to run into some base core code that that is commonly shared and unavoidable, because it is inherently from the core development.

    Adam, stop trying to "out do" everyone, you know you don't have to be right all the time. If you actually go back and read my post, I said the following: "This is standard HTML. Of course behind any web based product you're going to have standard HTML, CSS, JavaScript, or other JS Libraries. Yes, they might all have their similarities, but if you look at the back-end, some are almost completely different.". Your example is showing XML in this case, which looks like it's styling variables. If you understand development, HTML, CSS, JavaScript (Some Cases), and XML (Some Cases) are for the front-end. Back-end programming is something like PHP.

    it is not my intention to start any drama with anyone

    That is all you do, you start drama. This is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

  • Adam, stop trying to "out do" everyone, you know you don't have to be right all the time.

    Respectfully, my intention is not to "out do" anyone. It was only to further explain my original comment.

    That is all you do, you start drama. This is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

    I do not see my post as dramatic... Only an attempt to further explain and uphold my original statement. It was relevant to that regard.

    How you choose to intemperate things is outside my scope of control. We sometimes see what we want to see... If all you want to see is drama that is all you will ever see.

    Regardless, I wish you a good evening. :)

    • Offizieller Beitrag

    Actually the example with the XML file isn't that great because it shows the contents of the variables.xml. When exporting a style, this file is automatically created and holds the different settings for colors, fonts, etc used for our LESS compiler. These files must look similar, because they're using a "standardized" format for styles.

  • Actually the example with the XML file isn't that great because it shows the contents of the variables.xml. When exporting a style, this file is automatically created and holds the different settings for colors, fonts, etc used for our LESS compiler. These files must look similar, because they're using a "standardized" format for styles.

    It was the file that I interpreted as displaying the relative style information. If there is another file that I am unaware of, could you please share with me which file I should be looking at?

  • Adam, stop trying to "out do" everyone, you know you don't have to be right all the time. If you actually go back and read my post, I said the following: "This is standard HTML. Of course behind any web based product you're going to have standard HTML, CSS, JavaScript, or other JS Libraries. Yes, they might all have their similarities, but if you look at the back-end, some are almost completely different.". Your example is showing XML in this case, which looks like it's styling variables. If you understand development, HTML, CSS, JavaScript (Some Cases), and XML (Some Cases) are for the front-end. Back-end programming is something like PHP.

    That is all you do, you start drama. This is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

    Justin89 His hurt pride probably didn't let him see that you had already mentioned same development. Alas, you're right that he's constantly trying to out-do all who disagree with him, and in his awkward attempt to do so, he keeps crafting "proof" to support his claims. Life must be hard to someone who always trying to prove he is right.

    Respectfully, my intention is not to "out do" anyone. It was only to further explain my original comment.

    "Respect" isn't a word that suits your attitude, nor does it reflect the way you address those who don't see things the way you do. The fact that you keep disliking posts that don't agree with you show as much. And by the way, what's up with this dislike galore that you've been displaying lately? This is a forum, not Facebook. Make an effort and try to grow out of it.


    I will not follow up ... I will not reply further...


    A man true to his word. You and coherence really are old pals, uh? ;)

    Einmal editiert, zuletzt von rafix73 (16. Februar 2015 um 10:14)

Jetzt mitmachen!

Sie haben noch kein Benutzerkonto auf unserer Seite? Registrieren Sie sich kostenlos und nehmen Sie an unserer Community teil!