| # |
Sep 25th 2009, 13:15 |
kuja |
he wouldn't stop describing how awesome it was tho |
| # |
Sep 25th 2009, 13:15 |
gwoo |
yeah it is |
| # |
Sep 25th 2009, 13:15 |
kuja |
it's cool stuff. |
| # |
Sep 25th 2009, 13:13 |
alkemann |
any revelations? :) |
| # |
Sep 25th 2009, 13:12 |
kuja |
he talked a lot about cake3 |
| # |
Sep 25th 2009, 13:12 |
kuja |
not much, just got done listening to nate at CodeWorks |
| # |
Sep 25th 2009, 13:10 |
alkemann |
soup kuja? |
| # |
Sep 25th 2009, 13:06 |
kuja |
sup |
| # |
Sep 25th 2009, 11:29 |
gwoo |
i need to put up some more photos |
| # |
Sep 25th 2009, 11:29 |
gwoo |
yup |
| # |
Sep 25th 2009, 10:51 |
alkemann |
wun any forkmaster lately? |
| # |
Sep 25th 2009, 10:43 |
gwoo |
ok |
| # |
Sep 25th 2009, 10:41 |
alkemann |
yes well ill continue to look into these issues, but yea, if someone else wants to pick up, say the comment system, wysiwyg or something |
| # |
Sep 25th 2009, 10:39 |
gwoo |
ok |
| # |
Sep 25th 2009, 10:38 |
alkemann |
could simplify the whole app alot |
| # |
Sep 25th 2009, 10:38 |
alkemann |
hm.. im thinking maybe.. maybe the showDraft can always be active and only for the action for public view takes it off |
| # |
Sep 25th 2009, 10:37 |
alkemann |
making sure to not allow a flow where for instance a moderator edits the live data but keeps a draft existing |
| # |
Sep 25th 2009, 10:36 |
alkemann |
hm i dont think a use case can exist where the live table is newer than the draft, so revision should always look at draft instead of live if draft exist |
| # |
Sep 25th 2009, 10:35 |
gwoo |
then |
| # |
Sep 25th 2009, 10:35 |
gwoo |
oh i would override it in the model |
| # |
Sep 25th 2009, 10:34 |
gwoo |
yes |
| # |
Sep 25th 2009, 10:34 |
alkemann |
the method could be overwritten in the model to include that switch, but reducing those 3 lines to one is not really my point, but to remove it comepletely if we allow them knowing how to cooperate |
| # |
Sep 25th 2009, 10:34 |
gwoo |
just incase we need to change the automagic later |
| # |
Sep 25th 2009, 10:34 |
gwoo |
so maybe you could add that as a switch for showDraft |
| # |
Sep 25th 2009, 10:33 |
alkemann |
right, behaviour thing |
| # |
Sep 25th 2009, 10:33 |
gwoo |
it does not take any options |
| # |
Sep 25th 2009, 10:33 |
gwoo |
no that is always the first thing |
| # |
Sep 25th 2009, 10:33 |
gwoo |
ah it takes a Model |
| # |
Sep 25th 2009, 10:32 |
alkemann |
http://thechaw.com/bakery/source/branches/2.0/models/behaviors/revision.php#161 |
| # |
Sep 25th 2009, 10:32 |
alkemann |
no, it uses Model::id |
| # |
Sep 25th 2009, 10:31 |
alkemann |
those 3 lines do repeat yes |
| # |
Sep 25th 2009, 10:31 |
gwoo |
does createRevision take $options? |
| # |
Sep 25th 2009, 10:31 |
gwoo |
is that pretty standard? |
| # |
Sep 25th 2009, 10:31 |
gwoo |
ah i see |
| # |
Sep 25th 2009, 10:29 |
alkemann |
that create revision after save is normally automatic, the leak would be letting revision set the showDraft property on the model |
| # |
Sep 25th 2009, 10:28 |
alkemann |
http://thechaw.com/bakery/source/branches/2.0/controllers/article_pages_controller.php#27 |
| # |
Sep 25th 2009, 10:27 |
gwoo |
some leaking is fine, so long as it's documented |
| # |
Sep 25th 2009, 10:26 |
alkemann |
i put the finishing touches on getting revision and draft to work on the same model, i ended up taking revisions of automagic mode. which would you prefer, making controllers more explicit or letting them (at least in the bakery implementation) leak more into each other? |
| # |
Sep 25th 2009, 10:24 |
gwoo |
he will start working on the markup |
| # |
Sep 25th 2009, 10:24 |
gwoo |
once we finalize that |
| # |
Sep 25th 2009, 10:24 |
gwoo |
it's not quite there yet |