Sourcerer | Tools , services and applications for source code analysis

The problem was that allow_url_fopen was disabled in php.ini or php73-fcgi.ini allow_url_fopen = 1 (or On)

In my server there are many files php73-fcgi.ini, php72-fcgi.ini and more... In all of them I found this allow_url_fopen and enabled it (set to 1 or On) then it worked.

Be careful because the change took 10-15 minutes in my case. I believe because of caching ..

Use the following command so you can see more information about the nodes.

Worked it out.

Joomla does not see a module as a seperate page but rather as a nested div of the main page.

Moving the following lines to the main article page on which the module displays solved the problem as the .js needs to be referenced before anything else has loaded:

Removed this from the module and included it in the article:

The answer is petty simple. You included the necessary code but forgot to call it. The w3c example contains an event binding which I don't see in your source code.

Example:

To answer your questions in order:

Is there a downside?

Of course, and it's performance - related. If you add a million records each year, it will hurt performances; and occupy space on disk.

Where the suggestions in the linked question bad or just not popular?

The question and answers are good; but the right answer depends on your specific use case: are you doing it for legal reasons, how fast you want to be able to access the data, how much data and updates you have, how much you want your history functionality to last without changes... only if it met your use case you would vote.

As a rule of thumb, history should go to a different table, this would provide several advantages:

• your current tables don't change, so your code needs no change except for storing the current version also in history;
• your application doesn't slow down;
• if your history tables grow you can move them easily to a different server;

In order to choose whether to have a single history table or several (one per backed up table) depends on how you plan to retrieve the data and what you want to do with it:

• if you mirror each of your tables adding a timestamp and the user id, your code would need little modifications; but you'd end up with twice as many tables, and any structure change would then need to be replicated on the history table as well;

• if you build a single history table with the timestamp, the user id, the table name and a json representation of the record, you will have an easier life building it, while for retrieving it you should access the data using an Object per row i.e. using Joomla's dbo getObjectList(), then the objects will be the same format you store in the history table and the changes there will be fairly easy. But querying for changes across specific tables/fields will be much harder.

Keep in mind that having data is useless if you can't retrieve it properly.

Since you mention pushing to the website a few times a year, the overhead of the queries should not be an issue (if you update monthly, waiting 5 minutes may not be a problem).

You should seek the best solution based on the other uses of this data: for it to be useful to anyone, you will have to implement a system to retrieve historical data. If phpmyadmin is enough, well look no further.

I hope this scared you. Either way it's a lot of hard work.

If you just want to be able to look up old data, you may instead store a copy of the markup/output you generate from time to time, and save it to different folders on the webserver. This will take minutes to set up, and be extremely reliable.
Sure, it's more fun to code it. But are you really sure you need it? And you can keep the database dumps just in case one day you change your mind.

Use an absolute URL instead of of just "suburb.php" so it should be something like: http://www.[joomlasite].com/suburb.php

As for the localhost, then I would say you likely have the $live_site set to "localhost" in your configuration.php - make sure you set the $live_site to empty. If that's not the case, then search your database for any occurrence of localhost.

The benefit of using the second method is that if you are passing a Writer interface, you can pass anything which implements Write -- that is not only a file but a http.ResponseWriter, for example, or stdout os.Stdout, without changing the struct methods.

You can see this handy blog post on the package io walkthrough. The author makes the case that passing as parameter readers and writers makes your code more flexible, in part because so many functions use the Reader and Writer interface.

As you come to use Go more, you'll notice how much the standard library leans on Reader and Writer interfaces, and probably come to appreciate it :)

So this function (renamed):