| # |
Mar 11th 2009, 09:17 |
gwoo |
the debug should have been removed |
| # |
Mar 11th 2009, 09:16 |
gwoo |
and there is an example |
| # |
Mar 11th 2009, 09:16 |
gwoo |
so an article is not required |
| # |
Mar 11th 2009, 09:16 |
gwoo |
alkemann: its in the "helper" sections |
| # |
Mar 11th 2009, 09:15 |
alkemann |
there is no article. no api. no documentation. and the code has debug() in it |
| # |
Mar 11th 2009, 09:15 |
gwoo |
alkemann: you don't like that one? |
| # |
Mar 11th 2009, 09:15 |
alkemann |
ppl need to be told that bakery is not a paste bin |
| # |
Mar 11th 2009, 09:14 |
alkemann |
http://bakery.cakephp.org/articles/view/serializing-find-threaded-data-to-xml |
| # |
Mar 11th 2009, 09:14 |
alkemann |
wtf is happening with bakery.. every freaking article posted are garbage |
| # |
Mar 11th 2009, 05:33 |
ADmad |
Abba Brayant's comments are spot on |
| # |
Mar 11th 2009, 05:32 |
ADmad |
alkemann: its more about just the vendor class which isnt related / uses cake at all |
| # |
Mar 11th 2009, 05:31 |
ADmad |
alkemann: another article which i am not quite sure should have been published http://bakery.cakephp.org/articles/view/bake-an-html-screen-scraper |
| # |
Mar 11th 2009, 03:36 |
alkemann |
an appropriate amount me thinks ;) |
| # |
Mar 11th 2009, 03:34 |
ADmad |
food time... |
| # |
Mar 11th 2009, 03:32 |
ADmad |
with the behavior instances issue fixed i wonder how many user made behaviors it will break who didnt do things the right way :) |
| # |
Mar 11th 2009, 03:31 |
_nate_ |
right on |
| # |
Mar 11th 2009, 03:31 |
ADmad |
i learned a thing or two in making that path so its good enough for me |
| # |
Mar 11th 2009, 03:30 |
_nate_ |
gotcha, sounds good |
| # |
Mar 11th 2009, 03:30 |
ADmad |
just posted it |
| # |
Mar 11th 2009, 03:30 |
_nate_ |
ah, did not see it |
| # |
Mar 11th 2009, 03:30 |
_nate_ |
just API bloat IMO |
| # |
Mar 11th 2009, 03:30 |
ADmad |
_nate_: sure did... check my comment :) |
| # |
Mar 11th 2009, 03:30 |
_nate_ |
because I really don't see a need for a blacklist like that |
| # |
Mar 11th 2009, 03:30 |
_nate_ |
ADmad: hey, did my message on that ticket make sense to you? |
| # |
Mar 11th 2009, 03:29 |
_nate_ |
alkemann: yeah |
| # |
Mar 11th 2009, 03:29 |
alkemann |
heh saw you finally closed the behaviors instance.. good nite nate :) |
| # |
Mar 11th 2009, 03:29 |
ADmad |
_nate_: a very good nite to you then ;) |
| # |
Mar 11th 2009, 03:29 |
_nate_ |
I'm about to go to bed :-) |
| # |
Mar 11th 2009, 03:29 |
_nate_ |
hey guys |
| # |
Mar 11th 2009, 03:28 |
ADmad |
morning alkemann |
| # |
Mar 11th 2009, 03:28 |
alkemann |
good morning |
| # |
Mar 10th 2009, 14:11 |
alkemann |
A+ |
| # |
Mar 10th 2009, 14:09 |
ADmad |
alkemann: agree |
| # |
Mar 10th 2009, 14:06 |
ADmad |
~logs |
| # |
Mar 10th 2009, 14:05 |
ADmad |
evening guys |
| # |
Mar 10th 2009, 14:05 |
alkemann |
but back to subject. replies to private messages should be private yes, but they should also be part of the message system and not comments on articles, agreed? |
| # |
Mar 10th 2009, 14:03 |
alkemann |
heh lots of puns to that one yes |
| # |
Mar 10th 2009, 14:03 |
AD7six |
) |
| # |
Mar 10th 2009, 14:03 |
AD7six |
it's the other A team member |
| # |
Mar 10th 2009, 14:02 |
alkemann |
evening ADmad |
| # |
Mar 10th 2009, 14:00 |
alkemann |
i see |