Page 25 of 134, showing 100 records out of 13,394 total, starting on record 2,401, ending on 2,500
| # | Username | Text | |
|---|---|---|---|
| # | Sep 25th 2009, 10:35 | gwoo | oh i would override it in the model |
| # | Sep 25th 2009, 10:34 | gwoo | yes |
| # | Sep 25th 2009, 10:34 | alkemann | the method could be overwritten in the model to include that switch, but reducing those 3 lines to one is not really my point, but to remove it comepletely if we allow them knowing how to cooperate |
| # | Sep 25th 2009, 10:34 | gwoo | just incase we need to change the automagic later |
| # | Sep 25th 2009, 10:34 | gwoo | so maybe you could add that as a switch for showDraft |
| # | Sep 25th 2009, 10:33 | alkemann | right, behaviour thing |
| # | Sep 25th 2009, 10:33 | gwoo | it does not take any options |
| # | Sep 25th 2009, 10:33 | gwoo | no that is always the first thing |
| # | Sep 25th 2009, 10:33 | gwoo | ah it takes a Model |
| # | Sep 25th 2009, 10:32 | alkemann | http://thechaw.com/bakery/source/branches/2.0/models/behaviors/revision.php#161 |
| # | Sep 25th 2009, 10:32 | alkemann | no, it uses Model::id |
| # | Sep 25th 2009, 10:31 | alkemann | those 3 lines do repeat yes |
| # | Sep 25th 2009, 10:31 | gwoo | does createRevision take $options? |
| # | Sep 25th 2009, 10:31 | gwoo | is that pretty standard? |
| # | Sep 25th 2009, 10:31 | gwoo | ah i see |
| # | Sep 25th 2009, 10:29 | alkemann | that create revision after save is normally automatic, the leak would be letting revision set the showDraft property on the model |
| # | Sep 25th 2009, 10:28 | alkemann | http://thechaw.com/bakery/source/branches/2.0/controllers/article_pages_controller.php#27 |
| # | Sep 25th 2009, 10:27 | gwoo | some leaking is fine, so long as it's documented |
| # | Sep 25th 2009, 10:26 | alkemann | i put the finishing touches on getting revision and draft to work on the same model, i ended up taking revisions of automagic mode. which would you prefer, making controllers more explicit or letting them (at least in the bakery implementation) leak more into each other? |
| # | Sep 25th 2009, 10:24 | gwoo | he will start working on the markup |
| # | Sep 25th 2009, 10:24 | gwoo | once we finalize that |
| # | Sep 25th 2009, 10:24 | gwoo | it's not quite there yet |
| # | Sep 25th 2009, 10:24 | gwoo | we have been working with pointlessjon on a design |
| # | Sep 25th 2009, 10:24 | gwoo | alkemann: yeah we need to get them on it |
| # | Sep 25th 2009, 10:24 | gwoo | alkemann: great to hear. I been noticing the commits |
| # | Sep 25th 2009, 10:24 | alkemann | do you think any of the people that said they would help, are into putting in some hours? |
| # | Sep 25th 2009, 10:23 | alkemann | i think we are at a place now that people could be forking / branching and adding features, maybe get someone working on the design, view and layout |
| # | Sep 25th 2009, 10:22 | alkemann | phally has come along way with the user plugin |
| # | Sep 25th 2009, 10:21 | alkemann | gwoo: so now i have both test cases for article and article pages with full flow of creating, editing, publishing, with drafts and revisions, and working in the prototype app. |
| # | Sep 24th 2009, 08:09 | teknoid | is it ok to reprint the article from my blog to bakery? or is that violation of terms? |
| # | Sep 23rd 2009, 18:01 | ProLoser1 | ah |
| # | Sep 23rd 2009, 18:01 | Predominant | But sometimes its a mess of broken html |
| # | Sep 23rd 2009, 18:01 | Predominant | Sometimes its blank |
| # | Sep 23rd 2009, 18:01 | Predominant | ProLoser1: The whole email I get from the bakery is a mess. |
| # | Sep 23rd 2009, 17:22 | ProLoser1 | does anyone else get emails from the bakery with the <br /><br /> not getting parsed? |
| # | Sep 23rd 2009, 09:13 | Phally | its not like i have never listened before d'oh |
| # | Sep 23rd 2009, 09:12 | alkemann | alters |
| # | Sep 23rd 2009, 09:12 | alkemann | i guess i will have to stop giving feedback if that lands me a "do it urself then". im allready overextended |
| # | Sep 23rd 2009, 09:08 | Phally | i thought so too, hence you can improve it yourself, i'm not offended ;) |
| # | Sep 23rd 2009, 09:07 | alkemann | i thought it was a team effort with collaboration, i appologize if i offended. |
| # | Sep 23rd 2009, 09:06 | alkemann | i see |
| # | Sep 23rd 2009, 09:05 | Phally | doesn't sound very normalized, but be my guest, rebuild it then, because i'm not planning to |
| # | Sep 23rd 2009, 09:04 | alkemann | yea |
| # | Sep 23rd 2009, 09:04 | Phally | that means you will have a lot of null titles then? |
| # | Sep 23rd 2009, 09:03 | alkemann | so only let the root message have a title |
| # | Sep 23rd 2009, 09:03 | Phally | instead a conversation has a title |
| # | Sep 23rd 2009, 09:03 | Phally | i implemented it as i wanted, messages don't have titles |
| # | Sep 23rd 2009, 09:03 | alkemann | what then? |
| # | Sep 23rd 2009, 09:03 | Phally | i did not |
| # | Sep 23rd 2009, 09:02 | alkemann | a lie? im saying u can implement it as u want. did u intend that when a user sends a message he gives a converstation title, a message title and a message body? |
| # | Sep 23rd 2009, 09:02 | Phally | well that would be a lie then, click on a message and suddenly the title changes... |
| # | Sep 23rd 2009, 09:01 | alkemann | since a message know sthe root message, you can in your inbox either show the root message's title, the newest mesage's title, only allow title for the first, let them all haev titles, but show the root in the inbox. |
| # | Sep 23rd 2009, 09:00 | Phally | and give that title to every other message? |
| # | Sep 23rd 2009, 08:59 | alkemann | the title of the root message |
| # | Sep 23rd 2009, 08:58 | Phally | for instance that i chose to have a subject for the conversation and not for every message |
| # | Sep 23rd 2009, 08:57 | alkemann | afaics all those features can be implemented with 1 table and 1 row per message, i dont see why you need to use 3 tables and 4 rows to do it d |
| # | Sep 23rd 2009, 08:56 | Phally | not really, i just explained the entire inbox depends on it |
| # | Sep 23rd 2009, 08:55 | alkemann | 2 conversations_users, 1 message, 1 converasation for one system message because someone could want to expand this to be a convestation between multiple users? |
| # | Sep 23rd 2009, 08:53 | alkemann | i guess i still dont understand then |
| # | Sep 23rd 2009, 08:53 | Phally | because this isn't? |
| # | Sep 23rd 2009, 08:53 | alkemann | but if they need a forum or a something like a google group, why would they nto use that instead? |
| # | Sep 23rd 2009, 08:53 | Phally | yet i failed, it seems :') |
| # | Sep 23rd 2009, 08:52 | Phally | i designed it to make it useful to anybody |
| # | Sep 23rd 2009, 08:52 | Phally | i'm not looking only at the bakery |
| # | Sep 23rd 2009, 08:51 | alkemann | what flood are you expected for this? moderators will give feedback and some clueless noobs will ask for 1on1 support from authors. or so i predict |
| # | Sep 23rd 2009, 08:50 | Phally | sure it is |
| # | Sep 23rd 2009, 08:49 | alkemann | reply_to_message_id field, null = first message, inbox could list only these, marking as new if a child message has new ta. it is possible |
| # | Sep 23rd 2009, 08:48 | Phally | i'd say, check it out first ;) |
| # | Sep 23rd 2009, 08:48 | alkemann | chill man, lets get some input from someone else |
| # | Sep 23rd 2009, 08:47 | Phally | very well, hold on while i backup it, normal IM didn't have a lot of happy users (where i'm from) because of the flood, there is no way to make an inbox like this with only one table... you can do a group by, but what title to use etc.. too bad of the work i put into that though, the system worked really nice |
| # | Sep 23rd 2009, 08:39 | alkemann | with collaborative articles and comments etc, there should be plenty oppertunities for multi-participant discusssions |
| # | Sep 23rd 2009, 08:37 | alkemann | tbh, unless you can come up with a better reason than "it would be nice to have or extend in the future" i would reather keep it as simple as possible. ie simple im system |
| # | Sep 23rd 2009, 08:37 | Phally | but if you wanted me to make e-mail, you just had to ask that... |
| # | Sep 23rd 2009, 08:36 | Phally | sure, i still find this way nicer, though one table will become a mess of duplicate unnormalized titles etc unless you decide every message needs a new title |
| # | Sep 23rd 2009, 08:32 | alkemann | yea i realise ur not using habtm, doesnt change anything |
| # | Sep 23rd 2009, 08:31 | alkemann | still feature that can be implemented with one table |
| # | Sep 23rd 2009, 08:31 | Phally | it was :p |
| # | Sep 23rd 2009, 08:31 | Phally | alkemann: http://thechaw.com/bakery/source/branches/usersplugin/plugins/users/models/conversation.php#numbers |
| # | Sep 23rd 2009, 08:30 | Phally | i made the 'join'table to paginate the inbox and to order new messages etc |
| # | Sep 23rd 2009, 08:30 | alkemann | so the conversations_users isnt a habtm between messages and users? |
| # | Sep 23rd 2009, 08:29 | Phally | well that isn't implemented, just see it as possible, i was just making that up because you mentioned habtm :p |
| # | Sep 23rd 2009, 08:28 | alkemann | but u can make IM and add conversation with multiple participants an optional feature at least? |
| # | Sep 23rd 2009, 08:25 | Phally | one, yeah, if you want IM |
| # | Sep 23rd 2009, 08:24 | Phally | but later on i decided to make three, because somehow it made more sense (still does to me) |
| # | Sep 23rd 2009, 08:24 | alkemann | but one is enough |
| # | Sep 23rd 2009, 08:24 | Phally | at first i started with two tables :p |
| # | Sep 23rd 2009, 08:23 | alkemann | the feature sounds nice, im jsut saying u dont need 3 tables to do it |
| # | Sep 23rd 2009, 08:23 | Phally | i remember thinking about this :p |
| # | Sep 23rd 2009, 08:23 | Phally | just make it up and running and see what i mean :p |
| # | Sep 23rd 2009, 08:22 | Phally | this way the messages wont be in the mailbox, but conversations |
| # | Sep 23rd 2009, 08:22 | alkemann | a conversation_id could do that equally well |
| # | Sep 23rd 2009, 08:22 | Phally | habit |
| # | Sep 23rd 2009, 08:21 | Phally | alkemann: yeah, but then your mailbox will be flooded with messages about the same subject |
| # | Sep 23rd 2009, 08:21 | Phally | the users_plugin_conversations_users isn't just a simple join table |
| # | Sep 23rd 2009, 08:21 | alkemann | sender_id, receiver_id, new could do that |
| # | Sep 23rd 2009, 08:20 | Phally | messages are marked as new, but only for the person on the receiving end |
| # | Sep 23rd 2009, 08:20 | Phally | inbox idea ;) |
| # | Sep 23rd 2009, 08:19 | alkemann | a what? heh |
| # | Sep 23rd 2009, 08:19 | Phally | alkemann: ah wait, i remember i did it too so i could have a more awesome mailbox |
| # | Sep 23rd 2009, 08:17 | alkemann | looks like a lot of overhead for a rare use case, maybe include all the needed information for the regular use case in the messages table, and then the conversation feature could be optionally added on top of it |