| # |
Jul 21st 2009, 13:56 |
markstory |
well anytime you try and connect plugins together you will have to do some work. |
| # |
Jul 21st 2009, 13:54 |
ProLoser|Work |
i was thinking of designing this plugin to use the new users plugin being developed |
| # |
Jul 21st 2009, 13:53 |
ProLoser|Work |
okay then i suppose i shouldn't worry about it |
| # |
Jul 21st 2009, 13:53 |
ProLoser|Work |
hmm |
| # |
Jul 21st 2009, 13:53 |
markstory |
and they can use bindModel() or edit the files. |
| # |
Jul 21st 2009, 13:53 |
markstory |
they only need to add blog to question if they want blog associations when they look at questions. |
| # |
Jul 21st 2009, 13:53 |
markstory |
no. |
| # |
Jul 21st 2009, 13:52 |
ProLoser|Work |
i just wonder if i should be going about my plugin differently due to the likeliness of people wanting to establish relationships with the models contained in it |
| # |
Jul 21st 2009, 13:51 |
ProLoser|Work |
that means they have a new relationship in their blog model but it means they have to go into the plugin and add some code to the question model right? |
| # |
Jul 21st 2009, 13:51 |
ProLoser|Work |
but say someone makes like blog posts in their app and wnats to relate them to questions |
| # |
Jul 21st 2009, 13:51 |
ProLoser|Work |
and it's pretty self-encompassing |
| # |
Jul 21st 2009, 13:51 |
ProLoser|Work |
well my plugin is Q and A |
| # |
Jul 21st 2009, 13:50 |
ProLoser|Work |
so if i give this plugin to someone else, i would prefer they don't need to go in and rewrite the relationships in each model |
| # |
Jul 21st 2009, 13:50 |
markstory |
how so? |
| # |
Jul 21st 2009, 13:50 |
ProLoser|Work |
i'm saying there's no good way to configure a plugin to have relationships outside of itself |
| # |
Jul 21st 2009, 13:49 |
ProLoser|Work |
lol |
| # |
Jul 21st 2009, 13:49 |
ProLoser|Work |
eh nvm |
| # |
Jul 21st 2009, 13:49 |
ProLoser|Work |
.. i don't mean |
| # |
Jul 21st 2009, 13:49 |
markstory |
no you just leave off the plugin name then. |
| # |
Jul 21st 2009, 13:48 |
ProLoser|Work |
it just feels like i may be going about designing my plugin wrong |
| # |
Jul 21st 2009, 13:48 |
ProLoser|Work |
doesn't that mean i have to go in and start editin gfiles in my plugin |
| # |
Jul 21st 2009, 13:48 |
ProLoser|Work |
when the plugin model needs to be related to your app model |
| # |
Jul 21st 2009, 13:48 |
ProLoser|Work |
no i mean for the other way around |
| # |
Jul 21st 2009, 13:47 |
markstory |
Controller::loadModel() cheats though. |
| # |
Jul 21st 2009, 13:47 |
markstory |
you always need the plugin name in model associations. |
| # |
Jul 21st 2009, 13:46 |
ProLoser|Work |
cuz then you have to go into the plugin and edit it |
| # |
Jul 21st 2009, 13:46 |
ProLoser|Work |
doesn't it cause issues to make relationships with models outside the plugins? |
| # |
Jul 21st 2009, 13:46 |
markstory |
just following plugin conventions. |
| # |
Jul 21st 2009, 13:46 |
ProLoser|Work |
well i'd have to edit the plugin's model relationships |
| # |
Jul 21st 2009, 13:46 |
markstory |
there are no hoops |
| # |
Jul 21st 2009, 13:45 |
ProLoser|Work |
i don't know how many hoops i'd have to jump through to like keep that relationship |
| # |
Jul 21st 2009, 13:44 |
ProLoser|Work |
would it be weird/bad to make a join table between a plugin table and a regular table? |
| # |
Jul 21st 2009, 13:43 |
markstory |
yes className does, alias does not. |
| # |
Jul 21st 2009, 13:43 |
ProLoser|Work |
so i have to go find all the places it was affected |
| # |
Jul 21st 2009, 13:43 |
ProLoser|Work |
i moved half the app into this plugin |
| # |
Jul 21st 2009, 13:43 |
ProLoser|Work |
ACTION cleans up his relationships |
| # |
Jul 21st 2009, 13:43 |
ProLoser|Work |
classname needs that too? |
| # |
Jul 21st 2009, 13:42 |
ProLoser|Work |
hmm... more stray relationships |
| # |
Jul 21st 2009, 13:42 |
markstory |
well then an association might be missing className => 'Answers.Category' |
| # |
Jul 21st 2009, 13:42 |
Phally |
hmm not the problem then |
| # |
Jul 21st 2009, 13:42 |
ProLoser|Work |
only in the plugin |