WoWInterface - Comments for facboy's AddOn(s)

Timex / Chronos error (Timex)

Elkripper — Fri, 08 Sep 2006 04:45:55 +0000

Any idea what would be causing this error in Chronos.lua:

772: attempt to call field 'popTask' a nil value

It only seems to happen when Timex is enabled, and only since patch 1.12.

this should be fixed...i renamed so... (Timex)

facboy — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 08:16:52 +0000

this should be fixed...i renamed something and forgot to update another file.

the freezing problems will be solved as well...most ppl have seen it happening with KeepItCool. please let me know if there are any further issues.

Originally posted by Sirian
getting lots of:
---
TimexChronosSupport.lua:35: attempt to call method `RemainingTime' (a nil value)
---

when using various mods, i thin ill backdate a few versions.

one being http://www.curse-gaming.com/en/wow/addons-3474-1-aqwarner.html when trying to activate the C'Thun timer manually.

Thanx
Sir

getting lots of: ---TimexChron... (Timex)

Sirian — Thu, 08 Jun 2006 18:35:39 +0000

getting lots of:
---
TimexChronosSupport.lua:35: attempt to call method `RemainingTime' (a nil value)
---

when using various mods, i thin ill backdate a few versions.

one being http://www.curse-gaming.com/en/wow/addons-3474-1-aqwarner.html when trying to activate the C'Thun timer manually.

Thanx
Sir

beta3 really broken here too. Free... (Timex)

phyber — Wed, 07 Jun 2006 18:35:39 +0000

beta3 really broken here too. Freezing on load. Went back to previous non-beta version.

beta 3 is causing the game to freez... (Timex)

Starfury — Tue, 30 May 2006 18:46:01 +0000

beta 3 is causing the game to freeze up after loading in.

well I installed beta 2 and it still freezed up, had to go to the version before that to not get the freeze up. not sure if i had beta 2 installed before or not.

this should be fixed in beta2. not... (Timex)

facboy — Sun, 28 May 2006 02:19:51 +0000

this should be fixed in beta2. note to self: always test, n00b :P.

Couldn't find the bug section so I'... (Timex)

Scae — Sun, 28 May 2006 00:05:20 +0000

Couldn't find the bug section so I'm posting here:

Using timex latest beta and acetimers:

Error: Usage: TimexBar5Button:SetScript("type", function)
File: Interface\AddOns\Timex\Bar\TimexBar.lua
Line: 326
Count: 2

--------------------------------------------------

Error: Usage: TimexBar2Button:SetScript("type", function)
File: Interface\AddOns\Timex\Bar\TimexBar.lua
Line: 326
Count: 1

--------------------------------------------------

Error: Usage: TimexBar7Button:SetScript("type", function)
File: Interface\AddOns\Timex\Bar\TimexBar.lua
Line: 326
Count: 1

As you can see these are all generated by the same line and just change depending on what line acetimer is trying to make appear. With the current timex acetimer cannot make any timer bar appear.

Re: Error on Load (Timex)

facboy — Sun, 14 May 2006 07:52:05 +0000

Originally posted by happeria
\Interface\AddOns\Timex\Core\TimexCore.lua:30: attempt to index global 'AceChatCmd' (a nil value)

Got that when loading for the first time.

have you got Ace 1.3?

Error on Load (Timex)

happeria — Mon, 08 May 2006 21:35:52 +0000

\Interface\AddOns\Timex\Core\TimexCore.lua:30: attempt to index global 'AceChatCmd' (a nil value)

Got that when loading for the first time.

hmm i don't know. i certainly didn... (Timex)

facboy — Fri, 14 Apr 2006 00:49:42 +0000

hmm i don't know. i certainly didn't request it. while his posts were somewhat antagonistic (and inaccurate in parts),he did have some valid points.

the reason Timex has grown in size drastically is because i have rewritten large parts of it to be more efficient. it is about to get even larger...but don't make the mistake of thinking that smaller code is necessarily faster, because it's not. most any piece of functionality can be optimized to some degree (you don't want to do it indiscriminately though), but those optimizations take additional logic to perform, so the codebase size increases.

Originally posted by iwod
Few questions.

1. Why has all gorgeth comment been deleted? It is interesting to read and see how all these ACE Mod compare to others. As i am on the quest to get slimer lighter mod. I simply do not understand why i need 128Mb + Virtual Memory simply just to run the Addon part of the game )

2. What is the reason for the recent version of Timex 's size increase? It has grown from 4k on first release to 70k now.

Few questions.1. Why has all go... (Timex)

iwod — Thu, 13 Apr 2006 01:33:50 +0000

Few questions.

1. Why has all gorgeth comment been deleted? It is interesting to read and see how all these ACE Mod compare to others. As i am on the quest to get slimer lighter mod. I simply do not understand why i need 128Mb + Virtual Memory simply just to run the Addon part of the game )

2. What is the reason for the recent version of Timex 's size increase? It has grown from 4k on first release to 70k now.

And unlike the Ace authors/d... (Timex)

tardmrr — Tue, 11 Apr 2006 00:51:19 +0000

And unlike the Ace authors/devs.. cosmos is still being actively developed.. Ace is not, nor has it been for ages..

I invite you to join us in irc on freenode in the #wowace to see how we aren't actively developing Ace.

Originally posted by gorg... (Timex)

Tekkub — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 23:19:26 +0000

Originally posted by gorgeth
There are some "good ideas" behind Ace and the other mods that aim to cleanup/speedup/enhance functionality of older mods.. the problem is that those authors claimed victory without ever actually making valid comparisons..

Well since I'm included in your vast generization there, I guess I'll step in and defend myself.

I do not proclaim my mods to be a performance improvement unless I've got proof. Would you like proof for some? Look on ui.wow at Periodic Table. I give hard number comparisons of PeriodicTable vs. ReagentData, and there's some staggering differences.

Go install WarmUp and compare CTRA to oRA + oRA modules. There's a staggering difference really cause oRA cuts out all the crap CTRA puts in that doesn't really belong in a raid management addon. Raid frames have their place as a unitframe addon, not part of a raid management addon.

You don't like Timex or Rowne, that's fine, but don't go making vast generalizations about the Ace authors based off your dislike of one person and his mods. Rowne's been gone for some time and those of us that have adopted his mods would like you to not criticize our work as though it were his. I had some major issues with his coding style, and I've seen some nasty practices in his mods (passing tables for args, blarf!). We're doing what we can to fix up the few bad things we see (timex took tables in Rowne's API, the new API doesn't)... but across the board his works were quite solid.

And as for "abandoned", that's really not the case for a good portion of Ace's addons. In fact I doubt the rate at which our addons are abandoned and not adopted by another author is comperable or LESS than the general UI sites. Perhaps you should visit the SVN a bit, we post up a lot of changes there that don't hit the big UI sites. I personally hate the process of packaging up, writing notes, and uploading to 4 different sites. With the SVN I do two mouseclicks, write a quick note about what was changed, and hit OK. With the tarball downloads or an SVN client it's easy for the end users to get my latest build, and takes me a lot less time to post.

hmm...your Chronos stuff breaks wit... (Timex)

facboy — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 09:56:35 +0000

hmm...your Chronos stuff breaks with Timex installed? i thought i'd got rid of that behaviour :(. have you tried one of the more recent Timex releases? i know it didn't used to play nicely with Chronos - ie it would overwrite Chronos even if Chronos existed, which was rather poor form. but i thought i'd fixed that bug in R23.

i gotta say though, i haven't seen the behaviour you describe...what timers are you using that drag framerates into the sub-5 range? i must admit that i did think about implementing a time check on the frame update to make sure that it didn't chew the fps, but i've never seen Timex choking so i didn't see a need for it.

you've made a fair number of sweeping generalizations in your post. for example, when you say Ace hasn't been developed for 'ages', what kind of time frame are you talking about? Ace 1.3 was released on the Jan 1st of this year, and there has been plenty of development work on Ace-based mods both before and since that release. Chronos hasn't been updated since November of last year, and functionally has changed very little since June, so it's not exactly a hotbed of activity either.

unfortunately, i'm an alliance n00b and i don't have a shaman i can test CoE with. i'm going to look through the code, but i already suspect that it's because of the Chronos.getTimer support which is very poor in Timex currently - but i'm endeavouring to fix that! in fact, as soon as i chase down this mysterious AceTimer bug, i'll make it my top priority :D.

Originally posted by gorgeth
My issue with timex is that it does not work as a chronos replacement and does not get along with chronos being loaded ..

It has not "worked" as a chronos replacement *ever*

There are a great number of mods that rely on chronos (many of which are in cosmos, many are not) a prime example being Call of Elements which does nothing out of the ordinary.. nothing spectacular.. yet still has *never* worked with chronos..

In order to be a replacement.. timex would have to emulate chronos well enough to work AT LEAST with the built in cosmos mods.. but more importantly it would need to work BETTER than chronos.. timex does neither.. and never has..

Timex was created by rowne, and abandoned like 95% of the Ace related development work that has been done it was "reinventing the wheel" but it was not a better wheel.. it was a DIFFERENT wheel..

There are some "good ideas" behind Ace and the other mods that aim to cleanup/speedup/enhance functionality of older mods.. the problem is that those authors claimed victory without ever actually making valid comparisons..

Sure Ace + X mod == faster /less memory use than cosmos full install.. but then thats hardly a fair comparison.. ACE has just as many performance issues when running a full UI off of it.. as Cosmos does/did.. neither is inherently better than the other.. its what is done with them that matters..

And unlike the Ace authors/devs.. cosmos is still being actively developed.. Ace is not, nor has it been for ages..

Timex is an "ok" simple timer base, but it is not now, nor has it EVER had the ability to replace chronos, nor is it reliable enough to be used for more than the most basic mods (it chokes with more than a few sporadic calls and will drag framerates into the basement (sub 5 frames per sec from a avg of 60-70) when using more than a few timers.

You are correct, I do not like Rowne, i found his comments and statements and attitude toward other mod authors... rude and obnoxious ... and thats putting it mildy.. I also feel he suffered from "over optimization" disease, and a refusal to acknowledge that he was not "right" on every issue..

Ultimately though, all I ask is that you either make timex a full chronos replacement, or at least sit nicely alongside the current released version of chronos without causing major performance issues.

As far as using timex with cosmos, i do not even run anything from cosmos.. I use it *only* for a single simple mod that happens to require chronos and should work with timex as well (Call of elements) and it breaks horribly..

Though I have in the past and currently used "timex dependant" mods for short term.. and they invariably have performance issues that far outweigh their usefulness.. either with or without the chronos lib installed.

Re: Re: completely nonsense (Timex)

facboy — Sat, 08 Apr 2006 19:04:42 +0000

you are right in that Timex is not constantly updated to match Chronos...but the Chronos functionality has been fairly stable over time, sure new features are added from time to time, but it's not like there's been hundreds of new methods added since it's inception.

it is difficult to be 100% compatible, and if i've ever claimed that i'm sorry. i try to keep Timex compatible with Chronos where possible, and the fact is that a lot of mods only use Chronos' basic functionality and do not use the bleeding-edge stuff. afaik Timex supports the basic functionality fairly well.

i can't say that i agree with your comment that Timex is 'miles' behind Chronos in terms of functionality...perhaps you could point to specific things that Chronos can do that Timex can't? I had a look at the latest release as of tonight and there is an everyFrame method that i haven't noticed before, but that's about it. in fact that was present in the release from November (so it's a bit lax that i haven't added it to timex yet :)). actually the everyFrame method is the only functional change that i can see between the current Chronos and the one that was released in June of last year. fwiw, i use Timex's Chronos compatibility layer (not with cosmos mind you), and it hasn't caused me any issues yet (the bug mentioned in neriak's post did cause me problems, and i fixed it on my local version months ago when i first started using Timex).

you seem to have taken a personal affront to people liking Timex, or perhaps you're just trolling? i don't know, but your post is fairly inflammatory :). i've tried to remove some of the Chronos-bashing that exists in the Timex doco, but i can't say it's been a top priority of mine - which is not to say i condone it, just i think my time could be better used elsewhere.

as always, if people have specific issues with Timex, either with it's core functionality or it' s attempted Chronos compatibility, i'm glad to try and address them.

Originally posted by gorgeth
In fact his statement is and was 100% accurate.. timex is not updated to take into account changes in chronos in fact the most RECENT change to timex as posted today 4/8/2006 is STILL miles behind the chronos lib functionality as far as "replacing it"

If you wish to completely emulate another lib.. you have committed to being on a rollercoaster of matching the other lib update for update.. if that is too much for the timex authors to manage to do.. then they should stop claiming compatibility with chronos as a selling point..

BTW Ace/Timex Rowne fanbois should note: the reason #1 why ace/timex are "lighter' than cosmos alternatives is that they in fact do far less... much like bosspanel/fubar vs titan.. once you sufficiently load ANY of these frameworks with mods and such hanging off them.. they will be and in fact DO become just as bloated, laggy and otherwise crappy as cosmos supposedly is..

Use best of breed apps across the board.. drop the bias against anything "non-ace" and move on.. but stop posting like a bloody fanboi without comprehending the issues involved.. timex != chronos and has *never* been a direct replacement

My screen gets spammed with the fol... (Timex)

Tuplad — Thu, 06 Apr 2006 17:53:22 +0000

My screen gets spammed with the following:

Timex: Scheduled function 'SkyChannelMonitor' failed with error: Interface\Addons\Sky\Sky.lua:2167: attempt to index globar `ChronosData' (a nil value)

Actually the older code did have an... (Timex)

Isharra — Fri, 24 Mar 2006 23:37:09 +0000

Actually the older code did have an error which has been corrected in facboy's releases. (see the difference in tremove) from TimexR23-beta5.zip

schedule = function(...)
Chronos.scheduleByName(nil, unpack(arg));
end,
scheduleByName = function(...)
local n, t, f = arg, arg, arg;
tremove(arg, 1); tremove(arg, 1); tremove(arg, 1);
Timex:AddSchedule(n, t, nil, nil, f, unpack(arg));
end,
If there is any problem with chronos.schedule please report it as a bug.

completely nonsense (Timex)

neriak_x — Tue, 21 Feb 2006 12:53:22 +0000

Originally posted by Shark
do not use this addon, it has not been updated in a long time and will break many addons that use chronos.schedule, even without the chronos placeholder.
I don't know of which outdated version you're talking, but if you were smart you had looked at the code yourself before spreading bad rumors like this. It's really a shame seeing people trying to discredit other's works. Bah!

schedule = function(...)
Chronos.scheduleByName(nil, unpack(arg))
end,
scheduleByName = function(...)
local n, t, f = arg, arg, arg
tremove(arg, 1) tremove(arg, 2) tremove(arg, 3)
Timex:AddNamedSchedule(n, t, nil, nil, f, unpack(arg))
end,

This is from TimexR21.
Checkout Rowne's post: http://www.wowace.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=527&start=120

do not use this addon, it has not b... (Timex)

Shark — Tue, 21 Feb 2006 07:35:33 +0000

do not use this addon, it has not been updated in a long time and will break many addons that use chronos.schedule, even without the chronos placeholder.

Chronos.schedule(time, myFunction, param1)

will result in

Chronos.schedule(time, myFunction, time)

with timex installed.

-> total chaos.

Ah, I think I understand now. When... (Timex)

ElNino — Sat, 31 Dec 2005 16:47:05 +0000

Ah, I think I understand now. When you described it as a "timer" mod, I thought it was one of those stopwatch timer programs where you click it and it starts counting seconds, mins and hours.

Sounds interesting, but I'm still not sure I grasp the concept of ths mod - please bear with me. Are you saying that I could for example, make a macro, and when I click on it, it would emulate a mouse click on the same macro after so many seconds?