| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 08:51 |
alkemann |
what flood are you expected for this? moderators will give feedback and some clueless noobs will ask for 1on1 support from authors. or so i predict |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 08:50 |
Phally |
sure it is |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 08:49 |
alkemann |
reply_to_message_id field, null = first message, inbox could list only these, marking as new if a child message has new ta. it is possible |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 08:48 |
Phally |
i'd say, check it out first ;) |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 08:48 |
alkemann |
chill man, lets get some input from someone else |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 08:47 |
Phally |
very well, hold on while i backup it, normal IM didn't have a lot of happy users (where i'm from) because of the flood, there is no way to make an inbox like this with only one table... you can do a group by, but what title to use etc.. too bad of the work i put into that though, the system worked really nice |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 08:39 |
alkemann |
with collaborative articles and comments etc, there should be plenty oppertunities for multi-participant discusssions |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 08:37 |
alkemann |
tbh, unless you can come up with a better reason than "it would be nice to have or extend in the future" i would reather keep it as simple as possible. ie simple im system |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 08:37 |
Phally |
but if you wanted me to make e-mail, you just had to ask that... |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 08:36 |
Phally |
sure, i still find this way nicer, though one table will become a mess of duplicate unnormalized titles etc unless you decide every message needs a new title |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 08:32 |
alkemann |
yea i realise ur not using habtm, doesnt change anything |
| # |
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 |