Posts:
8,243
Registered:
31-Jan-2006
|
|
|
|
Re: What has changed the past 9 years that might break a skin rebuild?
Posted:
5 Oct 20, 21:57
in response to: xexyl
|
|
|
I agree but to be fair maybe the skin came first?
Nope. The skin uses the FancyApp script. And he's got another skin called PhotoSwipe. And guess what script that one uses? |
|
|
Posts:
157
Registered:
1-Sep-2009
|
|
|
|
Re: What has changed the past 9 years that might break a skin rebuild?
Posted:
5 Oct 20, 22:00
in response to: JeffTucker
|
|
|
I agree but to be fair maybe the skin came first?
Nope. The skin uses the FancyApp script. And he's got another skin called PhotoSwipe. And guess what script that one uses?
Right. It would use the PhotoSwipe script that came before Fancybox.
Then yeah it is confusing and probably not the best of ideas. But that's not for me to decide and I'd rather avoid getting into the politics of it, if you follow me (and I'm sure you do). |
|
|
Posts:
8,243
Registered:
31-Jan-2006
|
|
|
|
Re: What has changed the past 9 years that might break a skin rebuild?
Posted:
5 Oct 20, 22:03
in response to: xexyl
|
|
|
I remember Chris said something like this but it didn't register how it was set up; I didn't see on the skin page itself any more of the warning that it hadn't been updated in more than two years so I figured all was good.
If you go to the regular jAlbum skins page:
https://jalbum.net/skins/new
You'll see only 40 skins, all still reasonably current (though that's stretching things a bit - I'd say there are more like 25 that are truly usable). There are about 160 more, mostly old and unloved, that are hidden away. If someone is desperate to retrieve one of them, they're all there, but they're not searchable. We didn't want new users installing them and trying to make albums with them, only to be disappointed with the results. Most are technologically obsolete, and many don't work with current jAlbum at all. |
|
|
Posts:
157
Registered:
1-Sep-2009
|
|
|
|
Re: What has changed the past 9 years that might break a skin rebuild?
Posted:
5 Oct 20, 22:05
in response to: JeffTucker
|
|
|
You'll see only 40 skins, all still reasonably current (though that's stretching things a bit - I'd say there are more like 25 that are truly usable). There are about 100 more, mostly old and unloved, that are hidden away. If someone is desperate to retrieve one of them, they're all there, but they're not searchable. We didn't want new users installing them and trying to make albums with them, only to be disappointed with the results. Most are technologically obsolete, and many don't work with current jAlbum at all.
Makes perfect sense to me. My skin (the old build) did work but it's much easier to just classify all the old skins as no longer usable (or easily usable). Anyway thank you! |
|
|
Posts:
8,243
Registered:
31-Jan-2006
|
|
|
|
Re: What has changed the past 9 years that might break a skin rebuild?
Posted:
5 Oct 20, 22:17
in response to: xexyl
|
|
|
Thanks to Anders' quick work, your skin is now back in the Land of the Living:
https://jalbum.net/en/skins/updated |
|
|
Posts:
157
Registered:
1-Sep-2009
|
|
|
|
Re: What has changed the past 9 years that might break a skin rebuild?
Posted:
5 Oct 20, 22:18
in response to: JeffTucker
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posts:
1,246
Registered:
14-Dec-2007
|
|
|
|
Re: What has changed the past 9 years that might break a skin rebuild?
Posted:
6 Oct 20, 10:09
in response to: xexyl
|
|
|
I didn't know there was a skin with the same name!
Strange, the FancyBox skin is visible on all Brownse skins pages!
After or in these 9 years you never visited those pages?
And you did not see my contribution to your thread where FancyBox widget code was used? |
|
|
Posts:
157
Registered:
1-Sep-2009
|
|
|
|
Re: What has changed the past 9 years that might break a skin rebuild?
Posted:
6 Oct 20, 21:34
in response to: AndreWolff
|
|
|
|
No not strange at all.
Why would I have gone and looked for it?
I had and still have no reason to do so. Also as jGromit pointed out it’s confusing for skins to be the same name as other things and it possibly raises copyright issues. I wouldn’t expect a skin to be named after something else. Especially by not the same devs.
And I only returned after nine years. A few months ago. No. Nothing strange at all about it mate.
|
|
|
Posts:
157
Registered:
1-Sep-2009
|
|
|
|
Re: What has changed the past 9 years that might break a skin rebuild?
Posted:
6 Oct 20, 21:37
in response to: xexyl
|
|
|
|
And I don’t have widgets enabled either so no reason for me to pay attention to widgets. I didn’t want them in in the first place but I reported the validation problems anyway.
But that part of the thread wasn’t important and also at the time I was using Exposure by jAlbum’s former Kristoffer.
|
|
|
Posts:
157
Registered:
1-Sep-2009
|
|
|
|
Re: What has changed the past 9 years that might break a skin rebuild?
Posted:
17 Jul 21, 21:29
in response to: xexyl
|
|
|
|
I'm back again. A lot has been going on for me. Anyway a while ago I saw some pending changes in jAlbum that I thought might be a problem for my skin; I wasn't sure of it but I now have tested an older version (I think I should have kept the previous version of that too since there's a problem even with the least recent one I have and that's a pity as I wanted to play with some images) and the most recent version and the filters aren't working.
I did notice that the path to album-core.jar was changed which was kind of annoying (though I'm sure there's a good reason for it) and I thought maybe that was why. I fixed my build paths and recompiled, reloaded the skin and all restarted jAlbum in between.
Has anything changed that would affect filters working? The skin seems to work okay still.
Thank you and stay safe.
Edit: I should say filters still function but don't function correctly. I'm rather baffled and if it wasn't for the fact an older version (but more recent than I had used to make albums) is also not working right I'd say it was an update (and it might still be but unfortunately I don't have an older version to test this theory). In fact is there a way to get older jalbum-core.jar files ?
Edit 2: Yes I've looked at the changelog. I already marked my filters synchronised too (well synchronized) and I'm certain I have used it since then. That's what's baffling me. But I wonder if something was changed that might not be noted in the usual changelog that might be part of the problem.
|
|
|
Posts:
8,243
Registered:
31-Jan-2006
|
|
|
|
Re: What has changed the past 9 years that might break a skin rebuild?
Posted:
17 Jul 21, 21:41
in response to: xexyl
|
|
|
The location of jalbum-core.jar within the application hasn't changed in living memory, so I'm not sure what you're referring to in that respect.
In any case, you generally can't just swap out the core file - there are often other dependencies involved. If you want to reinstall an older version of jAlbum, however, there's almost a decades' worth here:
https://jalbum.net/en/software/download/previous
Just don't open a current, live, active project with a much older version of jAlbum. The effects would be misleading, at best, and at worst, could send you scrambling to get the project from your backups.  |
|
|
Posts:
3,808
Registered:
4-Aug-2006
|
|
|
|
Re: What has changed the past 9 years that might break a skin rebuild?
Posted:
17 Jul 21, 21:42
in response to: xexyl
|
|
|
|
The path to the core file will have changed if you use Mac OS and are now running Big Sur (11). The application package has a different structure, I had to refactor my skins too.
So many changes in so many ways, I don't know off-hand if filters might be affected.
|
|
|
Posts:
157
Registered:
1-Sep-2009
|
|
|
|
Re: What has changed the past 9 years that might break a skin rebuild?
Posted:
17 Jul 21, 21:45
in response to: RobM
|
|
|
|
Ah, so it's only macOS? Good. Then I can commit on my local git repo that fix.
In what way did you have to refactor your skins?
I'm certain that the last time I used jAlbum the filters worked. It's really strange.
Is there a way to get older jAlbum versions to test this out?
Thank you Rob (and everyone else who might reply)!
Btw I added a second edit to my message which maybe you didn't see since I was doing it as you were writing your reply.
|
|
|
Posts:
157
Registered:
1-Sep-2009
|
|
|
|
Re: What has changed the past 9 years that might break a skin rebuild?
Posted:
17 Jul 21, 21:47
in response to: JeffTucker
|
|
|
The location of jalbum-core.jar within the application hasn't changed in living memory, so I'm not sure what you're referring to in that respect.
As Rob pointed out it's for macOS Big Sur. I fixed that already though.
In any case, you generally can't just swap out the core file - there are often other dependencies involved. If you want to reinstall an older version of jAlbum, however, there's almost a decades' worth here:
I wondered about that of course.
Thank you!
Just don't open a current, live, active project with a much older version of jAlbum. The effects would be misleading, at best, and at worst, could send you scrambling to get the project from your backups.
No worries for me. I only want a version from last year and as for backups I have all the photos elsewhere already. I'll find out if an older version fixes it. If it doesn't then I must be losing my mind or something else funny is going on. |
|
|
Posts:
8,243
Registered:
31-Jan-2006
|
|
|
|
Re: What has changed the past 9 years that might break a skin rebuild?
Posted:
17 Jul 21, 21:49
in response to: RobM
|
|
|
The path to the core file will have changed if you use Mac OS and are now running Big Sur
I never saw NetBeans complain on the Mac (I'm usually on Windows), and couldn't figure out why, until I remembered what I had done. I routinely copy the latest jalbum-core.jar from the package to the NetBeans directory itself, and just use that as the library. I did that originally because NetBeans wouldn't let me navigate into the package contents to grab the library. Haven't tried it lately....
ETA: The NetBeans people finally fixed that.  |
|
|
|
Legend
|
|
Forum admins
|
|
Helpful Answer
|
|
Correct Answer
|
|
