| # |
Jul 21st 2009, 18:36 |
pointlessjon |
including all those things |
| # |
Jul 21st 2009, 18:36 |
pointlessjon |
as i understand it, code items are becoming almost like github repos or chaw projects |
| # |
Jul 21st 2009, 18:36 |
ProLoser|Work |
so that usecases and documentation can be built up around it |
| # |
Jul 21st 2009, 18:36 |
ProLoser|Work |
i'm saying keep code near it's related articles |
| # |
Jul 21st 2009, 18:35 |
ProLoser|Work |
i'm not saying cause ambiguouty by calling everything code |
| # |
Jul 21st 2009, 18:35 |
ProLoser|Work |
this is an example of how it's used |
| # |
Jul 21st 2009, 18:35 |
ProLoser|Work |
this is the code to use |
| # |
Jul 21st 2009, 18:35 |
pointlessjon |
ah yes, code will have that |
| # |
Jul 21st 2009, 18:35 |
ProLoser|Work |
'this is the tutorial |
| # |
Jul 21st 2009, 18:35 |
ProLoser|Work |
i know, so clearly break it apart into what is what |
| # |
Jul 21st 2009, 18:35 |
pointlessjon |
if it's in the article section, that article may contain 'code' in it for purposes of demonstration - but it is not meant to be dropped into an app |
| # |
Jul 21st 2009, 18:34 |
ProLoser|Work |
it would be nice to see the code, plus a tutorial on how to use it, plus snippets pertaining to the same vendor, plus an example of how it could be used, all be found in the same location |
| # |
Jul 21st 2009, 18:34 |
pointlessjon |
A content, item, node, etc. that is put in the code section contains portable, usable, stable code |
| # |
Jul 21st 2009, 18:34 |
ProLoser|Work |
and that's pretty much what we have now in bakery 1 |
| # |
Jul 21st 2009, 18:33 |
ProLoser|Work |
i thought you conceded that it creates a blob for the other areas that aren't code |
| # |
Jul 21st 2009, 18:33 |
pointlessjon |
exactly like the ticket (?) |
| # |
Jul 21st 2009, 18:33 |
ProLoser|Work |
so how would you organize them? |
| # |
Jul 21st 2009, 18:33 |
ProLoser|Work |
? |
| # |
Jul 21st 2009, 18:33 |
pointlessjon |
err, just aren't |
| # |
Jul 21st 2009, 18:33 |
pointlessjon |
those are articles with examples of code in them |
| # |
Jul 21st 2009, 18:32 |
pointlessjon |
no, those just are categorized as code |
| # |
Jul 21st 2009, 18:32 |
ProLoser|Work |
ur leaving those out |
| # |
Jul 21st 2009, 18:32 |
ProLoser|Work |
what about articles, tuts, snippets? |
| # |
Jul 21st 2009, 18:32 |
ProLoser|Work |
so that's /code/ |
| # |
Jul 21st 2009, 18:32 |
ProLoser|Work |
okay |
| # |
Jul 21st 2009, 18:32 |
pointlessjon |
imho |
| # |
Jul 21st 2009, 18:32 |
ProLoser|Work |
component/behavior/helper makes sense for categorization, i just wanted to abstract it so that other items that ARENT code could be categorized in the same way |
| # |
Jul 21st 2009, 18:32 |
pointlessjon |
right. any code in the code section should be ready to be dropped into an app with little to no code modification, only implementation into your app |
| # |
Jul 21st 2009, 18:31 |
ProLoser|Work |
mostly that is examples and tutorials |
| # |
Jul 21st 2009, 18:31 |
ProLoser|Work |
people who make models/controllers/weird snippets |
| # |
Jul 21st 2009, 18:31 |
pointlessjon |
? |
| # |
Jul 21st 2009, 18:31 |
ProLoser|Work |
i'm assuming you're deliberately sending a message to people who don't cater to one of those groups then |
| # |
Jul 21st 2009, 18:30 |
ProLoser|Work |
like one would be primary, the other would be a tag or fitler |
| # |
Jul 21st 2009, 18:30 |
pointlessjon |
but the code should specifically categorized along the subcategories |
| # |
Jul 21st 2009, 18:30 |
ProLoser|Work |
ya, i was thinking of that too |
| # |
Jul 21st 2009, 18:30 |
pointlessjon |
i would say they should be associated to mcv layers via tags |
| # |
Jul 21st 2009, 18:30 |
ProLoser|Work |
but not code? |
| # |
Jul 21st 2009, 18:29 |
pointlessjon |
indeed, the articles can be associated to certain mcv layers |
| # |
Jul 21st 2009, 18:29 |
pointlessjon |
sort of, i think the difference is in how i think of the code section versus the articles |
| # |
Jul 21st 2009, 18:29 |
ProLoser|Work |
since i think it would properly classify as much as possible |
| # |
Jul 21st 2009, 18:28 |
ProLoser|Work |
yes and i added a third structure, which may need some rethinking |