| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 08:31 |
alkemann |
still feature that can be implemented with one table |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 08:31 |
Phally |
it was :p |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 08:31 |
Phally |
alkemann: http://thechaw.com/bakery/source/branches/usersplugin/plugins/users/models/conversation.php#numbers |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 08:30 |
Phally |
i made the 'join'table to paginate the inbox and to order new messages etc |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 08:30 |
alkemann |
so the conversations_users isnt a habtm between messages and users? |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 08:29 |
Phally |
well that isn't implemented, just see it as possible, i was just making that up because you mentioned habtm :p |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 08:28 |
alkemann |
but u can make IM and add conversation with multiple participants an optional feature at least? |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 08:25 |
Phally |
one, yeah, if you want IM |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 08:24 |
Phally |
but later on i decided to make three, because somehow it made more sense (still does to me) |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 08:24 |
alkemann |
but one is enough |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 08:24 |
Phally |
at first i started with two tables :p |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 08:23 |
alkemann |
the feature sounds nice, im jsut saying u dont need 3 tables to do it |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 08:23 |
Phally |
i remember thinking about this :p |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 08:23 |
Phally |
just make it up and running and see what i mean :p |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 08:22 |
Phally |
this way the messages wont be in the mailbox, but conversations |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 08:22 |
alkemann |
a conversation_id could do that equally well |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 08:22 |
Phally |
habit |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 08:21 |
Phally |
alkemann: yeah, but then your mailbox will be flooded with messages about the same subject |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 08:21 |
Phally |
the users_plugin_conversations_users isn't just a simple join table |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 08:21 |
alkemann |
sender_id, receiver_id, new could do that |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 08:20 |
Phally |
messages are marked as new, but only for the person on the receiving end |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 08:20 |
Phally |
inbox idea ;) |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 08:19 |
alkemann |
a what? heh |
| # |
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? |