| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 10:26 |
gwoo |
AD7six: multiple selects are already done across the different db |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 10:26 |
jperras |
gwoo: right now they're all separate accounts, correct? |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 10:26 |
gwoo |
so if you click on your account name on the book you get your profile and do not have to go back to the bakery |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 10:25 |
gwoo |
AD7six: i would prefer to see a unified plugin that provides the same access to information across all the sites |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 10:24 |
AD7six |
a) know what I mean? b) thoughts |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 10:24 |
AD7six |
there's a term for what that means in terms of db queries which escapes me, instead of select * from posts left join users (author) you'd do 2 selects, which is simpler but more imprtantly means the users table can be in a different db from the app's data. |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 10:23 |
AD7six |
they setup for the bakery. |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 10:23 |
AD7six |
the book makes no joins between its own data and the users table. the book in reality needs its own user-profile or user-role or simply acl tables for disassociating book data, roles and everything else from simple 'a user'. I think the bakery should be designed to do the same - i.e. it should be possible to use the users table/model in any app on cakephp.org without assuming they have the same role/profile/requirements/whatever that |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 10:21 |
jperras |
I got some time |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 10:21 |
AD7six |
well I'll state the problem/doubt/idea for mulling over: |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 10:20 |
AD7six |
jperras: you got a minute now, or a bit later? |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 09:36 |
jperras |
more mockups based on use cases will follow, once I get some feedback on this initial one |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 09:34 |
jperras |
for all those interested, a first draft mockup of the bakery is viewable at http://drop.io/jperras . Comments are welcome and encouraged. |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 07:38 |
alkemann |
that would be weird :p |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 07:37 |
poLK |
I doubt debuggable guys will sue CSF ;) |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 07:36 |
alkemann |
did i say include? i meant shamelessly steal off course .p |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 07:35 |
poLK |
+1 vote |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 06:59 |
alkemann |
i really like debuggable.com 's feature of deprecating articles. I think we should include this feature. letting author's and moderators set this tag instead of deleting |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 02:37 |
jperras |
thanks. g'night |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 02:36 |
alkemann |
ok. sleep well |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 02:36 |
jperras |
the other mockups will be forthcoming, after we smooth out a few details from this one |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 02:36 |
jperras |
k, well I'm going to get a few hours of sleep. feel free to leave comments on the drop.io page, or on the wiki itself. |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 02:35 |
jperras |
good point |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 02:35 |
alkemann |
you should include the footer in ur write though |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 02:34 |
alkemann |
yea |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 02:34 |
jperras |
with an override for special announcements when they come up |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 02:33 |
jperras |
that could work |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 02:33 |
alkemann |
i agree on the boxes. but im unsure about timeline. im thinking using more space for hottest articles. maybe auto "feature" highest scoring stuff |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 02:31 |
jperras |
if you have ideas, I'm all ears ;-) |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 02:31 |
jperras |
really, I just want to get away from the mishmash of boxes |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 02:29 |
jperras |
alkemann: ok, tag cloud can stay at the same spot above the 'hottest stuff' |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 02:28 |
jperras |
iirc* |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 02:28 |
jperras |
most of those articles actually appear in the top boxes first, irrc |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 02:28 |
alkemann |
i think gwoo wants to keep tag cloud on home page as well |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 02:27 |
alkemann |
but im unsure about timeline. i do use the footer on the current bakery, but i think i have never read or used the contents of the "Recent articles.." |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 02:27 |
jperras |
so a timeline-type of view is a way of correcting those flaws |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 02:27 |
alkemann |
yes |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 02:27 |
jperras |
and some of them are stale for weeks |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 02:26 |
jperras |
there are just too many boxes, currently |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 02:26 |
jperras |
well, I think it's a good compromise for the many different types of articles we currently show on the front page |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 02:25 |
alkemann |
u want to give most space for a timeline? |