dbarretoivo
11-07-2004, 07:13 PM
What is best?
![]() | View Full Version : ClientExec x WHM Auto Pilot x Whois.Cart() dbarretoivo 11-07-2004, 07:13 PM What is best? mrzippy 11-07-2004, 07:30 PM Also try www.modernbill.com or www.lpanel.net or www.dramsystem.com Do a search on the forums for the other ones you listed and there are many threads discussing pros and cons of them. ModernAdvisors 11-07-2004, 07:34 PM I'd suggest you use www.lpanel.net I have experience with ClientExec, Whois.Cart, WHM AP. Our company is currently migrating to Lpanel's elite software... I think it's the best around! dbarretoivo 11-07-2004, 07:48 PM Modern Bill is very expensive as lPanel, IŽll try Dram :) mrzippy 11-07-2004, 08:38 PM Originally posted by GlobalHosters Our company is currently migrating to Lpanel's elite software... I think it's the best around! Except for the fact that one customer can't have multiple hosting accounts. :eek: Once they fix that major screwup, then I agree that it will be the best billing software at this time. But for now.. if you have one customer who wants to have multiple accounts, then they need to have multiple billing system usernames... Not so good. dbarretoivo 11-07-2004, 09:32 PM I need to test Drams admin, but is not avaible in their page :( Where can I see shots? How can I buy samething withou see how it works? blacknight 11-07-2004, 10:53 PM I'd go with whoiscart as it's more functional than Drams and cheaper than ModernBill dbarretoivo 11-07-2004, 10:57 PM are you happy with it? blacknight 11-08-2004, 05:04 AM Originally posted by BarreTo are you happy with it? Yes and no. Yes - you pay $35 and get functional software No - Due to the Zend encoding and other issues. If you are starting out it is a very good place to start. We started with phpmanager >> custom thing >> whoiscart >> now, that we are looking at modernbill Modernbill would have been pointless when we had 1 server and a handful of clients ... Now it makes a lot of sense :) dbarretoivo 11-08-2004, 12:14 PM Customize wc() is easy to do? What is the problem with Zend? Is Ion Cube better? blacknight 11-08-2004, 12:24 PM Customisation up to a point is fine, but as most of the code is encrypted using Zend you cannot see enough of it to know what you are doing when you want to do anything interesting with it. dbarretoivo 11-08-2004, 05:53 PM I can understand :) What about phpCOIN? Is it a good idea? Saeven 11-09-2004, 03:26 PM but as most of the code is encrypted using Zend you cannot see enough of it to know what you are doing when you want to do anything interesting with it I have to jump in and clear some facts :) Only the core is encoded, this means inner mechanisms and closed routines which if altered, could cause serious problems. Further, we have made the architecture extensible, which means that you can subclass encoded classes and build registrar automation modules, hosting panel provisioning modules and payment modules without needing to 'see' the core code. This is the beauty of PHP class hierarchies. What is available, is a total of 3920 lines of code which drive the graphic and dynamic elements, the template system, and the mailer modules. People have built some crazy modules for the cart, we've seen many, and some have even posted code in our forums for all to download, these include: a system which allows packaging of free domains with hosting, a WYSIWYG mailer template editor. This said, it can be construed that the amount of things you can change, definitely are a direct function of your imagination and skill with PHP. We always answer questions when asked if you need direct functions etc. In fact, there's a third party out there called paradigmservers.com which have been bombarding us with questions as they develop themes for whois.cart which behave exactly like Modernbill (released), the next is WHMAP (unreleased still). We are always impressed by these types of initiatives. We cannot thus contend that the code is a hurdle, those that do complain that they are restricted by the encoded core either don't have the knowledge to use the core (since really there exists no limit to what you can do), or just don't bother looking at what is actually available. We were very judicious with what we released - and every encoded line was considered to be 'immutable'. Best regards! Alex VN-Ken 11-09-2004, 10:09 PM mmm, Lpanel is awesome. We just switched from WHMAP to Lpanel, and it works SOOOOO BETTER, and it makes our company look more professional. Here's why: About an hour ago, someone called to place an order. I loged on to Lpanel and clicked add client. In just the one form, it billing the customer's CC, sent the welcome e-mail, and made the account on WHM, where-as if I were using WHMAP, I could ONLY create the customer on WHMAP. Lpanel is simply the best!! Saeven 11-09-2004, 10:17 PM LPanel only allows one hosting plan per customer... strange. VN-Ken 11-09-2004, 10:20 PM mmm, don't think so, although I havn't had the product long enough to know. If not, I'll post in there request for the v1.5 and have them make it so that you can have more than one plan per customer if that's the case. Saeven 11-09-2004, 10:35 PM It would be a good suggestion. That they didn't allow it off the bat should raise some alarm bells however. Speaking as a doctor of science (which is what I am before being a member of a competing software) if my assumption that they've allowed one hosting plan per client is correct, it would involve that under the current structure, that the customer/plan relational entity possesses only one unique key. This would mean that under the current model, allowing more than one plan would allow duplicity by the same token - which unfortunately entails a denormalized ER design. Denormalized code and databases make for big server burn times when the database gets full. It would be both important, and a 'good' task to renormalize the code and ER-model after the fact - not sure why you would not do this off the bat. Again, assuming the assumption is correct. The important thing, is that if this is true, that should they implement the change in the future, that it not be a 'patch' type of fix, and a proper change at the model, not just the code. It is very crucial that heavy-load applications keep normal form always, Boyce-Codd should always be the goal. At least if my diatribe here was in vain, perhaps it will introduce BCNF to future developers who read this post :) Cheers! Alex Goldwing 11-10-2004, 06:52 AM Don't know about doctor of science - but I need to see a proper doctor after reading that last post cause me brain hurts :) |