Page 6 of 134, showing 100 records out of 13,394 total, starting on record 501, ending on 600
| # | Username | Text | |
|---|---|---|---|
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 12:56 | AD7six | yeah it does suck |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 12:57 | AD7six | http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/173/schematicmneatoml0.png |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 12:57 | alkemann1 | AD7six: behavior to tags.. him.. |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 12:58 | AD7six | ADmad: actually the template thing could behandled simply as a 'special' article for each category |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 12:58 | ADmad | yup yup |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 12:58 | ADmad | like that idea |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 12:58 | alkemann1 | dont u think it would be much mroe effective to hav the logic in the model isntead of a habtm joined model? |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 12:59 | AD7six | what logic |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 12:59 | alkemann1 | deprecated (or mentioned tag) behavior |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 13:00 | AD7six | I didn't mention a model behavior |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 13:01 | alkemann1 | AD7sixalkemann: how about rather than specifically deprecated, optionally (by admin) attaching 'behavior' to tags |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 13:01 | AD7six | alkemann yes? |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 13:01 | AD7six | that's not talking about model behaviors |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 13:01 | alkemann1 | who is? |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 13:01 | AD7six | is there an echo? |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 13:02 | ADmad | ACTION giggles |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 13:02 | gwoo | what is the template? |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 13:02 | AD7six | alkemann1: I'm suggesting that a tinyint deprecated field could (maybe, it's a point of discussion) would be better implemented as defining this-tag-causes-that-to-happen for articles |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 13:03 | jperras | AD7six: don't go too crazy with schema stuff. I'd like to wait until a few more mockups are created |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 13:03 | AD7six | jperras: np, I don't think we've left normality yet |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 13:03 | alkemann | AD7six: i understood that to be your intent. i simply meant that requireing joining a habtm model to filter out deprecated articles may get expensive |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 13:03 | gwoo | also, as a general rule of thumb bakery needs to be extremely simple |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 13:04 | gwoo | no over abstractions |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 13:04 | gwoo | that breed complexity |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 13:04 | AD7six | alkemann: I don't understand what you're saying |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 13:04 | alkemann | i agree |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 13:04 | gwoo | ACTION knows AD7six too well :P |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 13:04 | alkemann | someone else understand me can rephrase? |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 13:05 | AD7six | alkemann: where is your "filter out deprecated articles" stuff coming from |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 13:05 | AD7six | alkemann: are you still sore over that session discussion? |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 13:05 | alkemann | find('all',array('deprecated' => false)) with no recursiveness, vs checking for deprecated tag for all articles |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 13:06 | AD7six | it was only that - a discussion from my point of view |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 13:06 | AD7six | alkemann: where is taht a requirement |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 13:06 | AD7six | and besides how expensive is a join |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 13:06 | alkemann | AD7six: nope. i never get upset about discussions :) |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 13:06 | alkemann | far from free |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 13:07 | AD7six | alkemann: there has to be a find by tag anyway |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 13:07 | alkemann | but implement this with tag and all article finds are findByTag |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 13:07 | AD7six | and select articles from article left join articles_tags where tag_id = x is not expensive at all |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 13:07 | AD7six | what? I don't understand your logic |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 13:08 | jperras | AD7six: tags for deprecation can get overly complex |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 13:08 | jperras | since you need to take into account the permission system |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 13:08 | AD7six | how so, or is the concept of tags changing for the bakery |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 13:08 | alkemann | it's just infinitly easier and also more effective to have a boolean in article table |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 13:08 | jperras | and then need to blacklist tags (or use a pre-defined dropdown of tags) for user input |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 13:08 | AD7six | oh I see because users are going to be able to tag things themselves? |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 13:09 | jperras | because a normal user shouldn't be able to tag an article as deprecated |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 13:09 | alkemann | they do now. dont see why we should stop that |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 13:09 | AD7six | alkemann: to put it another way is there any other kind of big-red-box-or-other effect you're planning on adding |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 13:09 | alkemann | nope |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 13:10 | alkemann | this tag is not jsut a visual thing on the article page, it removes the article from several other features. like search and front page |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 13:10 | AD7six | good point |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 13:11 | ADmad | this is a tiny but important feature... dont want ppl to be refering to stale stuff like those printed books |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 13:11 | jperras | add in the complexity that I described with permissions, and it's not a very scalable implementation |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 13:11 | alkemann | example : http://debuggable.com/posts/google-analytics-php-api-cakephp-model:480f4dd5-b2a4-452a-b4ed-4f3fcbdd56cb |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 13:11 | AD7six | so whatelse http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/1732/schematicmneatooc5.png |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 13:12 | alkemann | the comment stuff doesnt look like it matches specc |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 13:13 | ADmad | AD7six: do we need a status for page too ? its not as if one page on article will be offline and others not |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 13:13 | AD7six | ADmad: pending edit |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 13:14 | alkemann | AD7six: please read the specc stuff. we have changed the edit moderation system |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 13:14 | AD7six | k |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 13:15 | AD7six | what does "Threaded replies, one level deep" mean |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 13:15 | alkemann | if u post a new comment it is a root node. if u reply it is a level 2 node |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 13:18 | AD7six | and the 1 level deep bit? |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 13:19 | alkemann | no matter who u reply to, your reply is posted last with the original comment as parent |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 13:19 | AD7six | ok. |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 13:19 | alkemann | last as in regards to it's siblings |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 13:19 | AD7six | is there planned to be any logic in the app based on comment types |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 13:20 | alkemann | just a matter of what tab they are in i think |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 13:20 | AD7six | cool |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 13:24 | AD7six | http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/6152/schematicmneatonf4.png next? |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 13:25 | ADmad | "only comment titles are visible, must expand to see comment body" not sure i like that.. |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 13:25 | ADmad | i want to have to click each time i want to read a comment |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 13:25 | ADmad | *i dont |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 13:26 | AD7six | alkemann: are you referring to your publish by voting discussion? |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 13:28 | ADmad | AD7six: for comments table created modified should be datetime |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 13:29 | AD7six | changed |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 13:30 | ADmad | do we need a comment_types table? can't just do with a string field in comments |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 13:31 | ADmad | since it doesnt do much other than specify in which tab the comment is shown |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 13:31 | AD7six | the spec says comment types are fixed in the system I've linked to an old image that table shouldn't exist |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 13:32 | alkemann | AD7six: no. draftedbehavior.. leaving articles online, while edits are pending moderation |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 13:32 | jperras | a simple identity map should be good enough for comment types. no need for an extra table |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 13:32 | alkemann | agreed |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 13:33 | AD7six | updated: http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/8728/schematicmneatods6.png |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 13:33 | AD7six | alkemann: where is the drafted behavior mentioned in the spec (link) |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 13:35 | alkemann | AD7six: i guess it slipped by .sorry |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 13:35 | AD7six | alkemann: imo it would be beneficial to use the same logic as the book regarding pending submissions - because there's then only 1 code base to edit in that regard |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 13:35 | alkemann | http://thechaw.com/bakery/source/branches/2.0.x.x/models/behaviors/drafted.php |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 13:36 | alkemann | AD7six: i am unfamiliar with the book code. |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 13:36 | AD7six | I am unfamiliar with the drafted behavior :) |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 13:36 | alkemann | yes, it was made for bakery |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 13:39 | AD7six | I don't see it used anywhere - I assume it's intended to be used in the page model |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 13:40 | AD7six | why do you need both revision and drafted behaviors |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 13:41 | ADmad | AD7six: isnt the ratings table missing a filed for storing the rating ? |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 13:41 | alkemann | it's not in use cause the code is barely baked. |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 13:41 | alkemann | AD7six: revision and drafts are very different creatures |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 13:41 | AD7six | ADmad: yes :) |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 13:42 | ADmad | heh |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 13:42 | jperras | what is the 'status' field in the rating supposed to be |
| # | Feb 19th 2009, 13:42 | ADmad | yeah dont think we are gonna approve ratings too |
