| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 08:12 |
alkemann |
i guess what im asking is what your thinking, cause im not getting it |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 08:11 |
alkemann |
like most forum scripts / apps have a message system as well, building the forum out from the message system just seems odd to me |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 08:11 |
alkemann |
Phally: it's not about meeting bakery needs only.. and im more wondering about bloating a feature to be extensible in a direction it shouldnt need to go |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 08:09 |
alkemann |
one table of messages with sender_id and receiver_id seems enough for me |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 08:09 |
Phally |
i'll delete it and make it meet bakery needs only if you like |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 08:08 |
alkemann |
wouldnt one of the apps using the plugin be a forum, if such were required |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 08:08 |
alkemann |
building an interal user to user message system to be expendable to a full forum seems odd to me |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 08:07 |
Phally |
eventually you could even invite people to read/reply to the conversation |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 08:07 |
alkemann |
"defined as user to user messages." - i dont see why you have that extra layer |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 08:06 |
Phally |
well it would be less static and more expandable |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 08:06 |
Phally |
something like that yeah |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 08:06 |
alkemann |
Phally: what in that spec calls for a habtm? |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 08:05 |
alkemann |
with a habtm between messages and users, arent u creating a meta forum? |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 08:05 |
Phally |
http://thechaw.com/bakery/wiki/spec/users/messaging |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 08:04 |
Phally |
those are sort of topics, which hold messages |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 08:03 |
alkemann |
we have a spec for that somewhere? |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 08:03 |
alkemann |
Phally: what are conversations though? |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 08:02 |
Phally |
yeah, that would be best, just keep the prefixed ones |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 08:02 |
alkemann |
so drop the tables without prefix? |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 08:02 |
Phally |
not really no |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 08:01 |
Phally |
yeah, that is how it is now |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 08:01 |
alkemann |
but we cant have both i guess? |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 08:01 |
alkemann |
get ur messages no matter what app ur using |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 08:01 |
alkemann |
if we are talking about the internal mail thing, i dont see a problem with that being part of the plugin and therefore shared between all |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 08:00 |
alkemann |
also a 'conversations' and 'users_plugin_conversations' |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 08:00 |
Phally |
alkemann: ah crap, haven't thought of that... messages are now for everything the same |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 07:58 |
alkemann |
Phally: should there be both a 'users_plugin_messages' and a bakery 'messages' table? |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 07:36 |
alkemann |
having a little trouble starting on implementing the tests i have for the article and article pages model. need both user stuff and app flow design |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 07:10 |
Phally |
hehe i doubt there is |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 07:10 |
Phally |
you could do find('weird'); which does the extract in the model, but that will keep the extract |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 07:10 |
alkemann |
right, and where is the api for saying you want model.n :) |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 07:09 |
Phally |
find('all') will always give you n.model instead of hasmany model.n |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 07:09 |
alkemann |
well i assume cake is constructing this result behind the scenes, seems dumb to convert one way and then back instead of just stating how u want it |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 07:08 |
Phally |
yeah, don't think there is a way to flip the result that way without using extract or well, extract is the best option |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 07:08 |
alkemann |
to get behaviour |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 07:07 |
alkemann |
Phally: by manual i mean i ask for the associated model's datamyself instead of recursive or containable |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 07:06 |
alkemann |
Phally: kinda annoying doing either an array merge or a Set::extract to create the cake expected results |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 07:06 |
alkemann |
Phally: http://bin.cakephp.org/view/236643793 |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 05:27 |
alkemann |
hmm, yes... child could be a tutorial of the code article maybe? |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 05:27 |
alkemann |
if I create a translated article (or for some other reason make a child article) should I be allowed to put my article in a different category than the parent? |
| # |
Sep 22nd 2009, 13:34 |
Phally |
that's right |