| # |
Mar 1st 2009, 06:34 |
d1rk |
Bakery is a good place for them to get in touch with authoring articles. |
| # |
Mar 1st 2009, 06:34 |
d1rk |
alkemann: i really believe, they need help with it. Most of them never ever published anything like this. |
| # |
Mar 1st 2009, 06:02 |
alkemann |
Dont get me wrong. I do believe that many of the authors we do have could have written better articles. Maybe our plans for enforced article page structure will alliviate some of it. but mostly i think that ppl should just use more time on them |
| # |
Mar 1st 2009, 06:00 |
alkemann |
and more crap hits the bakery.. I know im probably an ass with too high expectations, but truthfully I am not motivated to work on the new bakery when all the articles I see being published are this bad. It's like only the wrong sort of people are publishing their stuff here. The good people post on their own blogs.. Maybe we should just make an aggregator instead ? |
| # |
Feb 25th 2009, 03:17 |
alkemann |
yea that would be naise feature i think |
| # |
Feb 25th 2009, 03:15 |
rvv |
once the new bakery is done and we feel comfortable that the quality of the articles are generally decent, it would be cool if the cookbook had links in the relevant chapters to the corresponding sections in bakery, preferably with some automagic that gave you a list of the community components (title - description linked to the article) on a special page in the components chapter in the book (and the same for the other sections) |
| # |
Feb 25th 2009, 03:10 |
rvv |
hehe reading through the component articles in bakery is quite funny in a sad way |
| # |
Feb 25th 2009, 02:41 |
poLK |
haha |
| # |
Feb 25th 2009, 02:40 |
alkemann |
"this is crap, but thanks for trying" should suffice :p |
| # |
Feb 25th 2009, 02:40 |
poLK |
for irc probably yes, but not for official CSF email |
| # |
Feb 25th 2009, 02:39 |
alkemann |
your english is fine :) |
| # |
Feb 25th 2009, 02:38 |
poLK |
I can unpublish it, but it would require someone with better english to send him email why |
| # |
Feb 25th 2009, 02:38 |
poLK |
heh, he does same nasty thing ->Brita, ->brita and viewVars['brita in other article too |
| # |
Feb 25th 2009, 02:35 |
poLK |
unfortunately, we don't have approved_by field |
| # |
Feb 25th 2009, 02:35 |
alkemann |
not only shouldnt people use this or do it this way, but by publishing it on bakery, bakery staff is advocating this srt of solutions :( |
| # |
Feb 25th 2009, 02:34 |
rvv |
the same people have another empty component that should be a behavior |
| # |
Feb 25th 2009, 02:34 |
alkemann |
yea its basically garbage. |
| # |
Feb 25th 2009, 02:32 |
poLK |
not sure who approved it |
| # |
Feb 25th 2009, 02:32 |
poLK |
controller will have ->Scraper component, also ->scraper instance of vendor, and passing this object to view in viewVars |
| # |
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 |