| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 09:13 |
Phally |
its not like i have never listened before d'oh |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 09:12 |
alkemann |
alters |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 09:12 |
alkemann |
i guess i will have to stop giving feedback if that lands me a "do it urself then". im allready overextended |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 09:08 |
Phally |
i thought so too, hence you can improve it yourself, i'm not offended ;) |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 09:07 |
alkemann |
i thought it was a team effort with collaboration, i appologize if i offended. |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 09:06 |
alkemann |
i see |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 09:05 |
Phally |
doesn't sound very normalized, but be my guest, rebuild it then, because i'm not planning to |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 09:04 |
alkemann |
yea |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 09:04 |
Phally |
that means you will have a lot of null titles then? |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 09:03 |
alkemann |
so only let the root message have a title |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 09:03 |
Phally |
instead a conversation has a title |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 09:03 |
Phally |
i implemented it as i wanted, messages don't have titles |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 09:03 |
alkemann |
what then? |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 09:03 |
Phally |
i did not |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 09:02 |
alkemann |
a lie? im saying u can implement it as u want. did u intend that when a user sends a message he gives a converstation title, a message title and a message body? |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 09:02 |
Phally |
well that would be a lie then, click on a message and suddenly the title changes... |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 09:01 |
alkemann |
since a message know sthe root message, you can in your inbox either show the root message's title, the newest mesage's title, only allow title for the first, let them all haev titles, but show the root in the inbox. |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 09:00 |
Phally |
and give that title to every other message? |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 08:59 |
alkemann |
the title of the root message |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 08:58 |
Phally |
for instance that i chose to have a subject for the conversation and not for every message |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 08:57 |
alkemann |
afaics all those features can be implemented with 1 table and 1 row per message, i dont see why you need to use 3 tables and 4 rows to do it d |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 08:56 |
Phally |
not really, i just explained the entire inbox depends on it |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 08:55 |
alkemann |
2 conversations_users, 1 message, 1 converasation for one system message because someone could want to expand this to be a convestation between multiple users? |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 08:53 |
alkemann |
i guess i still dont understand then |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 08:53 |
Phally |
because this isn't? |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 08:53 |
alkemann |
but if they need a forum or a something like a google group, why would they nto use that instead? |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 08:53 |
Phally |
yet i failed, it seems :') |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 08:52 |
Phally |
i designed it to make it useful to anybody |
| # |
Sep 23rd 2009, 08:52 |
Phally |
i'm not looking only at the bakery |
| # |
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 |