Timeline for Onepage checkout, or not Onepage checkout
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 31, 2013 at 9:14 | comment | added | pspahn | "Only two that are stable" is merely one developer's experience. I've yet to use a single one that I've liked. I think most of us understand that "difficult to modify" modules have been an issue for all of us at some point, I wouldn't go so far as to say the post is being promotional. It's just an anecdotal statement about a user's experience with the ecosystem. | |
| Jan 31, 2013 at 8:56 | comment | added | Tim Bezhashvyly | hehe. yes, this is a paradox. do you think it is worthy removing this? | |
| Jan 31, 2013 at 8:19 | comment | added | OSdave | it's kinda funny that you hope this question is not intended to promote neither 2 extensions and end up your answer saying that only those are reliable :-) | |
| Jan 23, 2013 at 13:04 | comment | added | Tim Bezhashvyly | In this case I guess you have more then enough answers in this thread. Sorry for closing it. | |
| Jan 23, 2013 at 13:02 | comment | added | ProxiBlue | Hi, the question is not to promote them. It is a valid question. As a developer I have found that replacing the default Onepage brings with it issues related to clients wanting numerous enhancements, and then having to deal with the custom code. One 3rd party extention (not going to name which) has had more issues than what it is worth. Yes maybe 'everyone' is an exaggeration, thus I restate : Why would someone want to replace a perfectly working core based checkout? I am in fact promoting core OneStep, not the other way around :) | |
| Jan 23, 2013 at 12:48 | history | edited | Tim Bezhashvyly | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 261 characters in body |
| Jan 23, 2013 at 12:35 | history | answered | Tim Bezhashvyly | CC BY-SA 3.0 |