Log message #536495

# At Username Text
# Feb 19th 2009, 13:09 AD7six alkemann: to put it another way is there any other kind of big-red-box-or-other effect you're planning on adding
# Feb 19th 2009, 13:09 alkemann they do now. dont see why we should stop that
# Feb 19th 2009, 13:09 jperras because a normal user shouldn't be able to tag an article as deprecated
# Feb 19th 2009, 13:08 AD7six oh I see because users are going to be able to tag things themselves?
# Feb 19th 2009, 13:08 jperras and then need to blacklist tags (or use a pre-defined dropdown of tags) for user input
# Feb 19th 2009, 13:08 alkemann it's just infinitly easier and also more effective to have a boolean in article table
# Feb 19th 2009, 13:08 AD7six how so, or is the concept of tags changing for the bakery
# Feb 19th 2009, 13:08 jperras since you need to take into account the permission system
# Feb 19th 2009, 13:08 jperras AD7six: tags for deprecation can get overly complex
# Feb 19th 2009, 13:07 AD7six what? I don't understand your logic
# Feb 19th 2009, 13:07 AD7six and select articles from article left join articles_tags where tag_id = x is not expensive at all
# Feb 19th 2009, 13:07 alkemann but implement this with tag and all article finds are findByTag
# Feb 19th 2009, 13:07 AD7six alkemann: there has to be a find by tag anyway
# Feb 19th 2009, 13:06 alkemann far from free
# Feb 19th 2009, 13:06 alkemann AD7six: nope. i never get upset about discussions :)
# Feb 19th 2009, 13:06 AD7six and besides how expensive is a join
# Feb 19th 2009, 13:06 AD7six alkemann: where is taht a requirement
# Feb 19th 2009, 13:06 AD7six it was only that - a discussion from my point of view
# Feb 19th 2009, 13:05 alkemann find('all',array('deprecated' => false)) with no recursiveness, vs checking for deprecated tag for all articles
# Feb 19th 2009, 13:05 AD7six alkemann: are you still sore over that session discussion?
# Feb 19th 2009, 13:05 AD7six alkemann: where is your "filter out deprecated articles" stuff coming from
# Feb 19th 2009, 13:04 alkemann someone else understand me can rephrase?
# Feb 19th 2009, 13:04 gwoo ACTION knows AD7six too well :P
# Feb 19th 2009, 13:04 alkemann i agree
# Feb 19th 2009, 13:04 AD7six alkemann: I don't understand what you're saying
# Feb 19th 2009, 13:04 gwoo that breed complexity
# Feb 19th 2009, 13:04 gwoo no over abstractions
# Feb 19th 2009, 13:03 gwoo also, as a general rule of thumb bakery needs to be extremely simple
# Feb 19th 2009, 13:03 alkemann AD7six: i understood that to be your intent. i simply meant that requireing joining a habtm model to filter out deprecated articles may get expensive
# Feb 19th 2009, 13:03 AD7six jperras: np, I don't think we've left normality yet
# Feb 19th 2009, 13:03 jperras AD7six: don't go too crazy with schema stuff. I'd like to wait until a few more mockups are created
# Feb 19th 2009, 13:02 AD7six alkemann1: I'm suggesting that a tinyint deprecated field could (maybe, it's a point of discussion) would be better implemented as defining this-tag-causes-that-to-happen for articles
# Feb 19th 2009, 13:02 gwoo what is the template?
# Feb 19th 2009, 13:02 ADmad ACTION giggles
# Feb 19th 2009, 13:01 AD7six is there an echo?
# Feb 19th 2009, 13:01 alkemann1 who is?
# Feb 19th 2009, 13:01 AD7six that's not talking about model behaviors
# Feb 19th 2009, 13:01 AD7six alkemann yes?
# Feb 19th 2009, 13:01 alkemann1 AD7sixalkemann: how about rather than specifically deprecated, optionally (by admin) attaching 'behavior' to tags
# Feb 19th 2009, 13:00 AD7six I didn't mention a model behavior
# Feb 19th 2009, 12:59 alkemann1 deprecated (or mentioned tag) behavior