| # |
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 |