| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 08:19 |
Phally |
alkemann: ah wait, i remember i did it too so i could have a more awesome mailbox |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 08:17 |
alkemann |
looks like a lot of overhead for a rare use case, maybe include all the needed information for the regular use case in the messages table, and then the conversation feature could be optionally added on top of it |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 08:15 |
Phally |
let me see how i made it again, since it was like two months ago |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 08:15 |
Phally |
ah well it is not a forum, a conversation is just a wrapper for the messages, say you have a behavior and someone pms you about it, but you buddy ronny has to fix it, you could eventually build in that you want to add him to that conversation, so he can read/reply on it etc |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 08:12 |
Phally |
hold on, let me read :p |
| # |
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 |