View Full Version : Product Attribute options?

02-28-2009, 07:48 AM
I have given up on this http://www.oscmax.com/forums/new-oscommerce-contributions/17409-product-attributes-sort-order-v1-0-a.html

because it causes nothing but problems on my site and there is no support for it at all.

Are there any other options out there that work with OSCMAX for getting some way of ordering the product attributes?

Is something like this going to be included in the new release?


03-01-2009, 09:44 AM
This is a osCommerce contribution - not a osCMax. It will have to be manually and carefully added into osCMax - as might conflict with existing contributions.

03-02-2009, 11:59 AM
Thank you. That is the answer I was looking for.

Are there any options for OSCMAX to do the same things?

03-02-2009, 01:00 PM
Yes - add it in manually. Use a Compare tool - like WinMerge or Beyond Compare.

First compare it to a PLAIN osC - comment/mark exact changes.

Compare the markup code to osCMax - find the where the code snip is - manually make the changes. if you have code that conflicts then post here.

05-04-2009, 06:42 AM
Is this included in the new release of OSCMAX V2.02? Or something like it that allows for sorting of products?

05-04-2009, 02:06 PM
It is not currently in osCMax but is on the short to-do list.

It is fairly trivial to install though, and have done so on many sites. Only takes a few minutes.

05-04-2009, 02:10 PM
I tried to do the install myself and it crashed my database over and over. I followed the instructions exactly. In fact, the admin it was perfect. I thought I had it, but when I went to my site nothing worked.

If there any other way to sort the attributes without this?

Here is my current understanding. If I was selling shirts. I started with Small, Medium and Large, but wanted to add X-small and X-large at a later date and have them in the correct order, I can't do it.

Right now it would go S,M,L, XS XL

That makes no sense. I want it XS, S,M,L, XL.

I would have to redo everything to get it that way.

Am I wrong?

Thanks Michael.