| # |
Feb 25th 2009, 02:31 |
poLK |
uhh, right, look at startup() method of it |
| # |
Feb 25th 2009, 02:27 |
alkemann |
there is no component, it just adds a vendor object to the controller. |
| # |
Feb 25th 2009, 02:27 |
alkemann |
why do so low quality stuff continue to appear on bakery? http://bakery.cakephp.org/articles/view/bake-an-html-screen-scraper-component |
| # |
Feb 24th 2009, 15:42 |
ADmad |
lets go back to the terminal i say |
| # |
Feb 24th 2009, 15:41 |
alkemann |
heh. no images or css. text is all that matters |
| # |
Feb 24th 2009, 15:40 |
gwoo |
images are stupid |
| # |
Feb 24th 2009, 15:37 |
ADmad |
alkemann: wring gwoo's arm to upgrade chaw maybe :P |
| # |
Feb 24th 2009, 15:36 |
jperras |
heh, that's up to gwoo. I think he's planning on adding image embedding into the wiki pages |
| # |
Feb 24th 2009, 15:35 |
alkemann |
so how are we going to get mocks into our wiki? it being a bit image impaired :D |
| # |
Feb 24th 2009, 15:32 |
jperras |
actually, the only issue with the iniAcl implementation is that the base functionality does not allow for permission globs; everything needs to be spelled out |
| # |
Feb 24th 2009, 15:31 |
jperras |
what I meant was that gwoo said that spec is close to what was implemented in bakery 1.0 |
| # |
Feb 24th 2009, 15:30 |
jperras |
alkemann: no, what's in the spec is fine |
| # |
Feb 24th 2009, 15:30 |
alkemann |
ADmad: way i read it, he rather wants to use the old code |
| # |
Feb 24th 2009, 15:30 |
ADmad |
alkemann: so i guess its we will get to keep it after all :) |
| # |
Feb 24th 2009, 15:29 |
jperras |
pretty much the same as on that spec, from what gwoo tells me |
| # |
Feb 24th 2009, 15:28 |
alkemann |
jperras: havent seen any code from 1.0.. what to they do? |
| # |
Feb 24th 2009, 15:28 |
jperras |
so the custom permission engine from bakery 1.0 seems appropriate |
| # |
Feb 24th 2009, 15:27 |
alkemann |
i've not done any tests, but reading the book on it did not convince me to use it instead of what is currently specced |
| # |
Feb 24th 2009, 15:27 |
jperras |
and it's less flexible than I remember |
| # |
Feb 24th 2009, 15:27 |
jperras |
alkemann: so I did a few tests with iniAcl for the permissions |
| # |
Feb 24th 2009, 15:26 |
_nate_ |
and the API is super easy |
| # |
Feb 24th 2009, 15:26 |
_nate_ |
yeah, it's especially great for graphing |
| # |
Feb 24th 2009, 15:26 |
alkemann |
im gonna get into that real soon |
| # |
Feb 24th 2009, 15:25 |
_nate_ |
it's all canvas baby |
| # |
Feb 24th 2009, 15:25 |
_nate_ |
yup |
| # |
Feb 24th 2009, 15:23 |
alkemann |
very cool thing i didnt see happen in a browser without flash ; http://acko.net/files/projective/index.html |
| # |
Feb 24th 2009, 15:23 |
alkemann |
hey |
| # |
Feb 24th 2009, 15:15 |
jperras |
alkemann: hey |
| # |
Feb 24th 2009, 12:59 |
d1rk |
it could produce more switchers... |
| # |
Feb 24th 2009, 12:58 |
_nate_ |
k, brb |
| # |
Feb 24th 2009, 12:58 |
_nate_ |
heh |
| # |
Feb 24th 2009, 12:58 |
d1rk |
_nate_: well, maybe they plan to invade the windows world with more apps... |
| # |
Feb 24th 2009, 12:54 |
_nate_ |
d1rk: I mean, it's not like they have any incentive to encourage Windows development ;-) |
| # |
Feb 24th 2009, 12:53 |
_nate_ |
well, that'd require Apple's full company support, which, for Window's development, they probably wouldn't do |
| # |
Feb 24th 2009, 12:49 |
d1rk |
_nate_: yeah, would great if they open that to other developers. |
| # |
Feb 24th 2009, 12:38 |
_nate_ |
I'm sure Apple had to write a lot of custom libraries and UI rendering code to get Windows to do this |
| # |
Feb 24th 2009, 12:32 |
d1rk |
i coded c# for some years, but i would have no idea on how to do this. |
| # |
Feb 24th 2009, 12:32 |
_nate_ |
oh, yes, I suppose so |
| # |
Feb 24th 2009, 12:32 |
d1rk |
_nate_: having the look and feel of apple on win-machines. |
| # |
Feb 24th 2009, 12:31 |
_nate_ |
d1rk: sorry, do what exactly? |
| # |
Feb 24th 2009, 12:30 |
d1rk |
_nate_: yeah, but when apple can do it, others can too? |