| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 11:47 |
ADmad |
greetings bakers |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 10:59 |
jperras |
enough for me to shell out the $80US for it without blinking |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 10:59 |
jperras |
it's pretty good |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 10:56 |
markstory |
I've never used balsamic. I should try it next time. I just do everything in pencil/paper and illustrator. |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 10:55 |
jperras |
markstory: ah ok, sweet |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 10:54 |
AD7six |
k |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 10:54 |
gwoo |
AD7six: yes attachements is partially used |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 10:53 |
markstory |
so changing them from that to something we can make CSS/html out of. |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 10:53 |
jperras |
I have a hate-sometimes-but-rarely-love relationship with omnigraffle |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 10:53 |
jperras |
markstory: yep |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 10:53 |
markstory |
yeah they look like balsamique mockups right now. |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 10:52 |
AD7six |
oh maybe I'm looking at a modified schema.. |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 10:52 |
jperras |
de-sketchifying? |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 10:52 |
AD7six |
is the attachments table used anywhere in the current bakery? |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 10:50 |
markstory |
jperras: if you need help de-sketchifying those mockups I might have some time. |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 10:48 |
AD7six |
gwoo: I'm fiddling around with the schema now |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 10:47 |
gwoo |
jperras: ok sounds good |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 10:46 |
jperras |
so we're not running around in circles |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 10:46 |
jperras |
i want to finish a couple mockups of the use cases before anything else is started |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 10:45 |
jperras |
there aren't any (yet), afaik |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 10:40 |
gwoo |
ACTION would like to see the proposed schema and changes |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 10:40 |
AD7six |
unless someone better qualified does it first :) |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 10:39 |
jperras |
nice |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 10:39 |
AD7six |
btw I volunteer to write whatever db conversion process is necessary such that bakery 2 doesn't need to be held back by anything in the existing schema |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 10:38 |
markstory |
I remember seeing some unused fields in the current bakery schema. |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 10:38 |
markstory |
or making separate permissions/roles for each app. |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 10:37 |
markstory |
AD7six: I think that separating permissions and profile will be for the best in the long run. |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 10:34 |
AD7six |
sorting out (for the book) |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 10:34 |
AD7six |
which is something I'm going to be sorting out, but the same solution in principle applies to both apps, and any others that come |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 10:33 |
AD7six |
a bakery admin isn't necessarily a book admin |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 10:33 |
AD7six |
so maybe included in what I'm thinking about is disassociating 'profile' from app settings(like user's role) |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 10:32 |
jperras |
true |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 10:32 |
AD7six |
jperras: profile includes things like "email me replies to my comments" which would be an app by app thing |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 10:32 |
gwoo |
if it needs to be extended for each application then that can happen |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 10:32 |
gwoo |
AD7six: profile is the one and only profile |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 10:31 |
AD7six |
gwoo: cool. |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 10:31 |
gwoo |
AD7six: yes thats what i was saying |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 10:31 |
jperras |
why have more than one profile accross multiple cakephp.org apps? |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 10:30 |
AD7six |
don't know if 'your profile' should mean your-one-and-only profile or your book-profile, your bakery-profile, your xyz-profile |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 10:29 |
AD7six |
maybe that's inline with what you first said (?) |
| # |
Feb 19th 2009, 10:28 |
AD7six |
I'm not sure if your missing my point. if the bakery uses the plugin that the book uses (and the plugin's user model uses a different datasouce from $default) that by design addresses what I'm trying to point out. |