Re: Release: CakePHP RC3 - The RC of Triumph!
On Oct 6, 2008, at 11:12 AM, 703designs wrote: It's...getting...bigger. Compare the archive sizes from 1.1.x to 1.2 RC3. Sure, it's no Zend Framework, but let's try to keep the framework light and simple if possible. A web framework and simplicity may seem like oil and water at times, but a concerted effort to limit the core is important. Opinions? How much of that is the testing cases? ;) -- John --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups CakePHP group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Praise the good book!
On Sep 27, 2008, at 2:50 AM, cronet wrote: I would like to thank especially John David Anderson aka _psychic_ who has the overview about the documentation, and received so much indirect criticism in that era, where the book was not that what it is nowadays... Please don't stop with the criticism: it gets us where we are. Thanks for the nice words, guys, we're trying our best. I think the biggest factor has been how people have stepped up and helped with the team (AD7 and kab) and also those in the community[1] who have been able to jump in and help as well. Thanks, John [1] http://book.cakephp.org/stats Thank You !!! On Sep 27, 7:59 am, Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The book is really coming along nicely and always my first stop nowadays, when I need to check on something and definitely makes it easier for new cakePHP developers as well now. Plus it's nice to see its ongoing additions and revisions of its content. Another great resource, which often seems to be left out when it comes to understanding parts of cakePHP, is provided by the test cases included in cakePHP. It's on the same level as the API, as it not only provides a usage example, but also reads like a manual. If you're stuck or if you would like some more detailed information on a certain feature, then take a look at the test cases and I am certain it will answer all of your questions. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups CakePHP group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Models: Why not more Object Oriented??
On Sep 23, 2008, at 3:34 PM, Brenton B wrote: If anyone is still reading by this point (sorry it's so long), hopefully you can shed some light. PHP4 support. It's gotten us where we're at, and future versions of Cake will be PHP5-based and more OOP-friendly. -- John --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups CakePHP group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Models: Why not more Object Oriented??
On Sep 23, 2008, at 3:52 PM, Brenton B wrote: Hmmm ... never thought of backwards compatibility to PHP4 as a reason. I figured since PHP5 has been out for over 4 years (first beta was over 5 yrs ago) worrying about PHP4's support would've waned ... like, completely dropped off. So I'm guessing there must be some super fanciness in the Cake libs because PHP4 does support Classes and Objects, and I'm pretty sure PHP4 would still support the use cases previously described. How sure? ;) For one, see what happens when you try get_class() on an object of type ClassNamesComeBackLowerCase in PHP4.x and you'll see (part) of the problem. You can see how caseless classnames might screw up things in a CakePHP setup. Don't get me wrong, I'm still liking Cake, was just something I was thinking of while coding today. I promise you're not the first to bring it up. -- John --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups CakePHP group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Websites Using CakePHP
On Sep 16, 2008, at 10:41 AM, taokodr wrote: Hi Gang! Out of curiosity, whatever happened to the area that had the large list of sites using CakePHP? I keep finding references to this link (http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php/web/cakephp-in-the-wild? hl=en), but it goes to a site that says You have to be a manager of this group to view this page. Is there a publicly viewable version floating around somewhere else and I just can't find it? http://book.cakephp.org/view/510/Sites-in-the-wild -- John --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups CakePHP group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Html Helper
On Sep 10, 2008, at 1:35 AM, nayan wrote:
I am using cake 1.2 .When i use echo $html-input('FanType/
fantype_name') in my form.it give me the following error
Method HtmlHelper::input does not exist [CORE\cake\libs\view
\helper.php, line 148].can we use html helper in cake 1.2 ?
Yes, but you use the FormHelper in 1.2 for forms. :)
-- John
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
CakePHP group.
To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: making webservices?
If you're connecting with Flex, I'd recommend the CakeAMF plugin. https://trac.cakefoundation.org/amf -- John On Sep 3, 2008, at 2:15 AM, saumya wrote: Hi, I am pretty new here.I am going to work in Flex and PHP in my new project. So thinking of using CakePHP and making webservices out of it to be consumed by Flex. Can you good people outhere point me to a place to getting started in webservices with this framework? thanks --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups CakePHP group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: foregt password
This mailing list is not to be used as your own personal development laundry list. Read up on the topics under question–any PHP tutorial will do–and dive in. When you run into problems implementing these ideas in CakePHP, feel free to ask us more specific questions. Regards, John On Sep 2, 2008, at 11:33 AM, Ranjana Sriavastava wrote: I am new with cakephp. i want forget password functnality with cakphp. so pls help me. thanks. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups CakePHP group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Google Analytics Tracking
On Aug 21, 2008, at 2:04 PM, Alan wrote: Hi, we're trying to set up Google Analytics tracking with our cakephp site, and we're running into problems. Well, the marketing people are running into problems. Nice clarification. They have files that they say usually go in the root of the site and that search engines(like google) pull up and use for tracking. But because of cake's set-up, google cannot find these files (they tried putting them in the public_html folder). How can we make it so these files can be pulled up by search engines just by going to the url (www.sitename.com/sitemap.xml, etc)? app/webroot/sitemap.xml would be the correct path in that example. -- John --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups CakePHP group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: What happens with CakePHP Cookbook?
On Jul 19, 2008, at 11:23 AM, Dave wrote: If you published the book at lulu.com (or similar), I'd pay a few bucks to have a printed version of the docs... Sounds like others might too. I'd love to have it on the plane while traveling... It's in the works. We're making sure everything's covered and accurate for 1.2, then I'd like to have the core team (and others) put together some special chapters for a printed version. More info as it comes. -- John On Jul 19, 9:38 am, itsnotvalid [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I should say sorry for my English level which caused such an inconvenient misunderstanding ;-) I think that book.cakephp.org is a piece of software with wonderful content, and together with the API it would solve most of the basic problems I encountered in learning CakePHP. On Jul 18, 7:43 pm, villas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: @keymaster I'm sorry about misinterpreting your post. I guess it was difficult for me to imagine that people being 'desperate' could ever be an endorsement. Thanks for clarifying. Best wishes. On Jul 18, 12:08 pm, keymaster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Villas, You completely misread my post. The intent is 180 degrees opposite what you understood. I am praising John Anderson and team for the incredible effort they have put out over the last few months, to take the 1.2 docs from a state where the docs added almost no value, to the point where people are now desperate for the book (because it adds so much value). I would say that is quite an accomplishment. Forget the glitch, I and everyone else knows it's only temporary. Hope I stand clarified. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups CakePHP group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: What happens with CakePHP Cookbook?
On Jul 19, 2008, at 4:38 PM, keymaster wrote: John, are you referring to the CakePHP In Action book: http://www.manning.com/obrien/ that is being billed as the first guide to CakePHP endorsed and supported by the Cake Software Foundation? Nope - I'm talking about a printed version of the manual (aka the Book). -- John --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups CakePHP group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: What happens with CakePHP Cookbook?
On Jul 18, 2008, at 2:24 AM, keymaster wrote: I am desperate need to have a working version of the book. John Anderson and team, if you could ever have asked for a more telling endorsement of your efforts, this thread is it. Yeah we shut it down every so often so you guys will realize how much you really need the docs. :) Seriously though, we've had some difficulty with some enhancements and the way they affect the DB. The problem is usually compounded by people making the changes and people over the server being gone at different times. I apologize for the problems - nothing can be more frustrating when you're trying to get something done. Thanks to those who posted workarounds and suggestions. Hope to have it back in working condition soon. -- John --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups CakePHP group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Using CakePHP with WebORB for PHP?
I'd use this instead: https://trac.cakefoundation.org/amf/ -- John On Jul 16, 2008, at 3:15 AM, thomas wrote: Hey Guys, anyone ever used CakePHP together with WebORB for PHP? To me it looks like I need a different object structure in weborb and can't reuse my cakephp stuff, am I right? Anyone tried it? Thanks, Thomas --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups CakePHP group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: I am new to Cake PHP Can anybody help me on google chat
On Jul 16, 2008, at 6:15 AM, Ayaz Khan, Indore, India wrote: HI, My Name is Ayaz. I am working as software developer on PHP from last 10 months but I have to work on cake php. I m doing installation of cake php. I have worked with cake php before 8 month. but Now I am facing some problem. May be version changed. So comming this. So Please Can Any body add me on google talk for help. Please Chat with me Check out our IRC channel (#cakephp on freenode) for interactive help. -- John --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups CakePHP group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: ACL
http://book.cakephp.org/view/171/access-control-lists -- John On Jul 14, 2008, at 1:17 PM, puneetratan wrote: Hello Group, Can anyone let me know, the use of ACL in cakephp, and howz we can implement that ? Thanks puneet --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups CakePHP group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: ACL
On Jul 14, 2008, at 3:01 PM, aranworld wrote: I prefer using the honor system to ACL myself. It is much easier to set up. In that case, can I get a login account to your production server? ;) -- John --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups CakePHP group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: ACL
On Jul 14, 2008, at 1:38 PM, Chris Hartjes wrote: On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 3:17 PM, puneetratan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello Group, Can anyone let me know, the use of ACL in cakephp, and howz we can implement that ? http://book.cakephp.org/view/171/access-control-lists http://tinyurl.com/2rfwr However, many people have complained that it is not good enough documentation. Having not done any ACL myself, I cannot confirm that. fwiw, I just rewrote those sections (in the book) last week. -- John --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups CakePHP group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: CakeAMFPHP with Cake 1.2
On Jul 8, 2008, at 9:29 AM, morris wrote: I'm having a heck of a time trying to get CakeAMFPHP 0.6 working with a cake 1.2 site. We had been working with cake 1.1 and CakeAMFPHP, which was doing fine. I've spent the past week upgrading our site for 1.2 and everything is working extremely well -- except our flash bits have ceased to work. Unfortunately our team is now lacking the flash expert who had set all the flash stuff up, otherwise I wouldn't be here. I'm hoping that there may be some folk out there who have also chosen to simply overhaul their cakeamfphp to work in the 1.2 environment, like us. (I'd love to move to CakeAMF but I don't have the wherewithall to break open our flash files and retool them). I modified the cake_gateway.php file to be using the correct App::import methods, and debug var, which when visited tells me it is set up correctly. The problem seems to be that the flash movies are all timing out. Is there anything that anyone can tell me about the process for re- tooling cakeamfphp to work in cake 1.2? The App::import() call is now in index.php due to some path loading changes since earlier versions of cake. I can help if you need it. -- John --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups CakePHP group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: CakeAMFPHP with Cake 1.2
I think you're using even an older version of Cakeamf than I am.
I'd suggest getting the latest goodness from SVN, and following the
instructions here:
https://trac.cakefoundation.org/amf/
-- John
On Jul 8, 2008, at 10:48 AM, morris wrote:
So you're suggesting I move the following lines from /webroot/
cake_gateway.php
-- loadController (null); see below
-- vendor('cakeamfphp'.DS.'amf-core'.DS.'app'.DS.CakeGateway); see
below
into /webroot/index.php as
-- App::import('Controller', null);
-- App::import('Vendor', 'CakeGateway', null, null,
'cakeamfphp'.DS.'amf-core'.DS.'app'.DS.CakeGateway.php);
?
I would certainly appreciate some help here if there is more to it
than this. Feel free to PM me.
Thanks!
On Jul 8, 12:06 pm, John David Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Jul 8, 2008, at 9:29 AM, morris wrote:
I'm having a heck of a time trying to get CakeAMFPHP 0.6 working
with
a cake 1.2 site. We had been working with cake 1.1 and CakeAMFPHP,
which was doing fine. I've spent the past week upgrading our site
for
1.2 and everything is working extremely well -- except our flash
bits
have ceased to work.
Unfortunately our team is now lacking the flash expert who had set
all
the flash stuff up, otherwise I wouldn't be here. I'm hoping that
there may be some folk out there who have also chosen to simply
overhaul their cakeamfphp to work in the 1.2 environment, like us.
(I'd love to move to CakeAMF but I don't have the wherewithall to
break open our flash files and retool them).
I modified the cake_gateway.php file to be using the correct
App::import methods, and debug var, which when visited tells me it
is
set up correctly. The problem seems to be that the flash movies are
all timing out.
Is there anything that anyone can tell me about the process for re-
tooling cakeamfphp to work in cake 1.2?
The App::import() call is now in index.php due to some path loading
changes since earlier versions of cake. I can help if you need it.
-- John
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
CakePHP group.
To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Model association question
I always remember it like this: If a table contains a foreign key, it's like a little label that another object has put on it... i.e. it belongsTo something else. hth/fwiw, John On Jul 3, 2008, at 1:38 PM, Jonathan Snook wrote: A priority hasMany tasks. A task belongsTo a priority. It's a little weird, I know because in English you'd normally say: A task has a priority. A priority belongs to many tasks. And belongsTo is used if: A priority has one task. A task has one priority. At least, that's how I've considered it. (Although I'll gladly be corrected). On Jul 3, 1:53 pm, jhicks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OK, so I've got two tables: tasks and priorities. Many tasks can share the same priority. So is this a HABTM relationship? With HABTM, you usually have a join table but in my situation I don't need one. I just have a foreign key in my tasks table (priority_id) which points to the index of the priorities table. What do I do in this situation? CakePHP is expecting a join table. Thanks! --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups CakePHP group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: New CakePHP, CodeIgniter, Zend Framework and Ruby on Rails Benchmark
Two things to note: 1. He didn't use caching in any of the tests. This seems pretty silly, since almost *every* production website should be doing that. Essentially, if you're not planning on doing what you should be doing, you should be interested in these numbers. 2. His admitted CI preference and experience. Any wonder that CI magically appears at the top of every test? -- John On Jul 1, 2008, at 9:12 AM, DragonI wrote: Ekerete of AVNet Labs has performed PHP framework comparison benchmarks http://www.avnetlabs.com/php/php-framework-comparison-benchmarks . Cake performance - request per second aren't pretty. CakePHP 1.2.0.7125 rc1 was used! debug set to 0 - file caching is used. Anyway, read for yourself --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups CakePHP group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: CakePHP Sessions and Ajax (ExtJs)
If cake realizes that he user agent is different, it'll nix the session due to security concerns. There are some settings in core.php that turn that checking off - you might play with them, realizing the security implications. -- John On Jul 1, 2008, at 10:26 AM, killerboy wrote: Hi, I am using CakePHP seesion together with the ExtJs libary. I have some strange issues with my sessions, that are just lost if I try to do a Ajax call or any other call from ExtJs. I am checking via sessions if anybody is logged in. But this is not possible because the data stored in the sessions is not there anymore. I searched for solutions and found some saying setting Security.level in core.php to 'medium' or 'low' should help. I tried this, but still not working. I disabled Session.checkAgent, but this doesn't help either. Has anybody some more ideas? --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups CakePHP group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Quick informal poll
1. Rewrite ACL (parts of Auth) documentation from scratch. 2. Keep what's there and update it. -- John --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups CakePHP group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Documentation
Bakers, How are we doing? What is the most confusing? What's most needed and missing? I have a punchlist of my own, but I'm looking for input from you guys, especially the new ones. Thanks, John --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups CakePHP group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Documentation
On Jun 24, 2008, at 12:22 PM, Nate wrote: I totally don't get ACL. Like, at all. Who the heck wrote that?? I'd have to agree - the INI stuff is especially bad. -- John --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups CakePHP group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Utah CakePHP Users - Join Up
Bakers, Check out a new Utah-based user group for CakePHP users: http://groups.google.com/group/utahcakephp We're just getting started, but we're hoping to get together for meetings, lunch foosball. Hope to see you there, John --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups CakePHP group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Cake Forge
On Jun 13, 2008, at 4:03 PM, koko wrote: Hello, I just wanted to know if anyone knows how to get cakeforge script ... is it available for download or what?? because I wanted to start a website for small open source projects and I want to see how cake programmers do it in cakeforg ... I *think* at one time it was based on this: http://gforge.org/ -- John --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups CakePHP group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: How to translate the manual
On Jun 12, 2008, at 7:16 AM, Parro wrote: Hello, I would like to contribute to translate the manual in Italian. After selecting it as the language, I edited a part of the manual in book.cakephp.org, but I am not sure it is the right thing to do... I have also searched the group and I found this http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php/browse_frm/thread/70b4661fb0d9c9be/9a4ebaee6a7f31a1?lnk=gstq=translate+manual#9a4ebaee6a7f31a1 but the project is stuck... where can I submit my translations? Here: http://book.cakephp.org/it -- John --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups CakePHP group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: How i do date validation?
On Jun 10, 2008, at 12:01 PM, GreyWolf wrote: It's 1.2 Yes, i've looked. The documentation for data validation isnt good, i didnt figure it how to validate date. ;~~ Look in the date section: http://book.cakephp.org/view/140/date ? -- John On 9 jun, 14:23, Chris Hartjes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 12:56 PM, GreyWolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What's wrong? Thanks. What version of CakePHP are you using? If you're using 1.2, have you looked at this: http://book.cakephp.org/view/125/data-validation -- Chris Hartjes Internet Loudmouth Motto for 2008: Moving from herding elephants to handling snakes... @TheKeyBoard:http://www.littlehart.net/atthekeyboard --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups CakePHP group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Update from 1.2 beta to rc leads to huge perfomance drop
On Jun 7, 2008, at 8:18 AM, Femi Taiwo wrote:
Hi,
Here a quick 4-step primer to get better performance in cake
1. Specify var $recursive = 0; in your app/app_model.php
This will cut off all automatic calls to hasMany haBtm
relationships by default. three-quarters of the time, I don't want
those results - I simply need the belongsTo bindings.
2. Use the Containable behavior
http://cakebaker.42dh.com/2008/05/18/new-core-behavior-containable/
With that you can easily set the models to pull, the level of
recursion..
3. Use Wincachegrind and Xdebug to test after.
4. Avoid using so many App::import('Model',$modelName) in your
components where possible.
I've also seen a jump when I put the rewrite instructions in my apache
config rather than the .htaccess file.
-- John
Dr. Tarique Sani wrote:
On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 5:36 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I have noted the same thing of Hermann.
I use Xdebug and Wincachegrind.
And I have noted that the problem is exactly the presence of many
linked models in the application.
Great Start - What you really mean that your application is
running too many un-needed queries and handling too much data.
The solution to this is using the Containable behavior see
http://cakebaker.42dh.com/2008/05/18/new-core-behavior-containable/
I'm a newbie in Cake but I think that a post about The Things to do
to get the best permorfance in cake could be useful for the person
like me.
Not exactly in those words but there are posts about it out there
and like any other programming there can't be any one true solution
for best performance... you have to tailor your application
accordingly
Perhaps you can write a post on how you optimized your application.
Cheers
Tarique
--
=
Cheesecake-Photoblog: http://cheesecake-photoblog.org
PHP for E-Biz: http://sanisoft.com
=
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
CakePHP group.
To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: new not equals syntax
On Jun 7, 2008, at 6:22 PM, . wrote: i moved from cake 1.2.6 beta to 1.2.7 rc1. I am trying to do a query Not Equals, but does not work anymore. What is it replaced by? It was mentioned in the release announcment: rather than: 'field' = 'operator value' it is: 'field operator' = 'value' My guess is you're still trying the latter (count = 4) when you should use the new syntax (count = 4); -- John --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups CakePHP group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Recommendations for changes to Cake manual.
I agree with Chris' suggestion on creating tickets, but let me quickly respond here as well to see what others think... On Jun 2, 2008, at 11:20 AM, mustan9 wrote: Hi, I have a few improvement requests for the Cake online manual. 1) Currently, CakePHP.org is using Google to perform searching of the online manual. This doesn't work very well, and if you enter the value model it returns lots of unrelated links outside the scope of the manual. I would prefer that searching for model in the manual would return a list of pages with that word sorted by priority. The Google search was low hanging fruit for us, so we used it. We want to make the search better, but this was an easy way to get a lot of functionality fast. I think we won't entertain enhancing it unless someone can help us out with creating the changes. I also think if you're just searching for model, you're not going to get great search results anyway. This can be mitigated by smarter querying (ala model associations, model behaviors, or supermodels). 2) The manual mixes tutorial sections and reference sections. It's a little confusing. If you want to look up how to perform validation in a model it's hidden under 4 Common Tasks With CakePHP / Data Validation. You've separated models and validation into two different sections of the manual. Since the model documentation is located under Developing with CakePHP / Models. I guess I need a community response here - we've organized it as best we can, but this is the first time this has been brought up. If I get the feeling the current outline isn't' worried, we'll change it. Thoughts, folks? 3) Developing with CakePHP is really documentation for the API. It's structured differently from other sections of the manual. For example; All the subsections are really API objects. This really should be made a separate manual. There should be a tutorial manual, and a reference manual. If I need to know how to do a findAll with a model I look in the reference manual, and if I need to know how to install Cake on a shared server then I look in the tutorial manual under Installing Cake. The line between helping people use the API, and see the big picture tasks is really fuzzy. We don't really have any good answers here, but let me at least say that first, I don't see the advantage in splitting it up. Also, tutorials are housed in the Bakery, the manual houses a few fundamentals that are almost universally requested for (a starter tute, and an auth tute). 4) Allow short cuts to access reference material quickly; Nothing worse then having to browse all the subcategories of the manual to find where you've put the documentation for models. Do you have some specific suggestions for making this work? 5) Add see also links for the reference manual. If I'm reading the findBy documentation I'd like to also see a see also; findAll link for anything related. Yeah, good idea (make sure that gets logged). 6) Allow anonymous editing of the manual. Do you really need some one to register in order to submit a fix for a spelling mistake in the documentation? Yes. That is, unless you want to read about body enhancements, online pharmacies, and/or adult websites inside the manual. There *is* an approval process, but we want the threshold a little higher than rock bottom. 7) Change the Table Of Contents to use AJAX so that our browsers don't refresh every time we browse the tree. You'd need to clarify your suggestion here - I'm not sure what you mean. 8) Package the manual as a down loadable off line resource that people can read on the go. Such as a with a laptop while on the train headed to work. This has been covered on the list before - search it up for some ideas on how to accomplish this. I'm also toying with the idea of offering a nice printed version of the manual as a desk reference, possibly with some extra chapters from core team guys or other wildly popular celebrities. Thanks for the input, John --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups CakePHP group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Recommended User Authentication setup?
On May 28, 2008, at 10:57 AM, 703designs wrote: I'm working with Cake right now, and I thought that ACL was my answer to this question, but it seems that Cake's ACL (ACL in general, I suppose) only deals with roles, etc: It should be noted that ACL is *not* a system that is meant to authenticate users. You should already have a way to store user information and be able to verify that user's identity when they enter the system. Well, this is all good and well, but the user authentication systems I develop, while being functional, leave quite a bit to be desired, and I really wouldn't trust them beyond the limited purposes for which I've deployed them. To put it simply, I expect that a framework like this one would make developing a sane user authentication system a bit easier for a developer like myself. ACL != Auth. It's *related* to authentication, but so is the FormHelper. The criticism you're leveling here doesn't quite make sense. In any case, I might check out the AuthComponent (which works well with the ACL stuff). Chris' tute should be a good starting point. -- John --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups CakePHP group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Unable to inherit from aclnode
On May 27, 2008, at 8:50 PM, azlanms wrote:
I'm trying to create a model called 'Tree' based on the AclNode class
as:
class Tree extends AclNode {
var $name = 'Tree';
var $validate = array(
'title' = VALID_NOT_EMPTY
);
but I got this error message:
Fatal error: Class tree: Cannot inherit from undefined class aclnode
in /usr/local/myweb/app/models/tree.php on line 17
I've installed and placed all the CakePHP library files in the correct
location (otherwise I wouldn't be able to access my website in the
first place).
Can someone tell me where did I go wrong?
You'd need to include the model before you try to extend it, either
via loadModel, or App:import(), depending on your version.
Why do you want to extend this core class? You can get tree
functionality with the core TreeBehavior...
-- John
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
CakePHP group.
To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Vendor issue: Duplicate class name
On May 20, 2008, at 4:36 PM, Renan Gonçalves wrote: Why not Cake_*ClassName* convention? Like Zend. BecauseZendHasReallyLongClassNames. (imho) -- John On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 3:51 PM, jonknee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On May 20, 3:36 am, Matt Huggins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm trying to import a vendor class, but the class I'm importing in turn references another 3rd party class named cache. Since there is already a CakePHP class named Cache, I get an error message stating Fatal Error: Cannot redeclare class cache in [filename]. Does anyone have any clue how I can work around this? I don't want to rename the vendor class since I'll need to perform future upgrades to the class, not to mention that the class name is referenced throughout much of the 3rd party code. I have no idea where to go from here. Please help! This is why namespaces are being introduced into PHP (originally as part of 6, but backported to 5.3) http://us2.php.net/manual/en/language.namespaces.php Unfortunately that's not going to help you now. You may be stuck renaming manually (well at least with a regex). -- Renan Gonçalves - Software Engineer Cell Phone: +55 11 8633 6018 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] São Paulo - SP/Brazil --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups CakePHP group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Where do I find a cakephp developer in London?
On May 20, 2008, at 11:23 AM, eagerterrier wrote: I work for a web design agency in NW London, UK. We have been searching for a cakephp developer for 6 months now with no joy. Even a sound php developer with limited MVC experience would be good. We have spent around £2k on recruitment agency fees all with no joy. Maybe you need to pay the prospective developer more, rather than a recruitment agency. ;) A good place to post is withcake.com, or here. -- John --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups CakePHP group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Is migrations support planned for Cake?
On May 17, 2008, at 3:17 PM, the_woodsman wrote: Are they any steps towards offical cake migrations features, I'd be interested in taking a look, even if they're not very advanced...? Check out the Cake schema console. -- John --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups CakePHP group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Cookbook overhaul proposal
On May 12, 2008, at 11:15 AM, Aaron Shafovaloff wrote: I propose that the Cake team use MediaWiki with the FlaggedRevs extension (http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:FlaggedRevs) instead of their homegrown wiki, which currently has a closed review process. This extension, which will be integrated into Wikipedia in the coming months, allows for people to edit the draft of a page, and for users with a special privilege of reviewer to tweak and approve and even rate the proposed changes. This would effectively carry over the functionality of the homemade wiki that book.cakephp.org now uses. Some advantages would include: - Outsiders could see not only the default last-reviewed page, but also see the proposed changes. The process would be more open. - People could engage in MediaWik-style discussions that are attached to a page. Seems like we'd be throwing out the baby with the bath-water if we dumped what we have in order to gain a few features. Let's log these ideas somewhere so we can see how they fit in the Cookbook. - Instead of a progressive chapter breakdown of the content, I would hope that the Cake team would allow for larger pages to split into specific topical pages. I also propose using a more comprehensive front page for the wiki, which would have a handy taxonomy of links to those simply using the wiki as a reference guide. This would be much more intuitive than the current menu on the Cookbook. That's one opinion, but maybe a broader audience shares your view. - The efSyntaxHighlight_GeSHiSetup MediaWiki extension could be used to prettify code. Have you seen the code examples in the Cookbook? - The CakePHP team wouldn't have to bother maintaining/improving their home-made wiki application. MediaWiki is a great wiki project that continues to grow and be improved. Wikipedia uses it, so it's not likely at all that the application development would go inactive. To be blunt, the Cookbook is not a wiki, nor will it be so anytime soon. It's a community-contributed manual. We tried a wiki and it didn't work, so putting lipstick on the same pig isn't going to work for us. If there's specific features you've seen in MediaWiki you'd like to see in the Cookbook, then submit those ideas so we can see how they fit it. I realize the advantages of community (I'm on the team for an application framework, after all), but after a lot of thought, the wiki workflow doesn't quite work for us. Honestly, most of what people need is coming - we had to focus on just delivering content first, and now we're working to improve the communication process. Everyone has been just grand in submitting content even when the process is so blind. We appreciate your patience, and as has been said many times before, the quickest way to see the changes happen is to pitch in and help. - MediaWiki's template can be customized to the liking of the CakePHP team. We have 110% control over the layout as it stands now, so MediaWiki really doesn't offer any benefits there. I also propose that the Cookbook be put under a Creative Commons license, but I hear that this is already forthcoming. A CC license was installed a week or two ago. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ Thanks, John --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups CakePHP group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: OT: Shitty Community
I think you're both right (except the part about horrendous documentation - it's actually pretty good at this point). Imho, the core team *and* the community has a lot to learn about being more polite. I think everyone is to the point where we feel justified in making each other mad. Some n00b asks a retarded question in a rude way? Bite his head off. Some jerk on the core team shut down my idea? Complain on the mailing list. Personally, I've been really ashamed of some of the core team responses as much as I have about complaints and requests on the list. How about we meet in the middle, and every work on being a little more polite? I'll try better to understand your frustration if you try harder to understand being overworked and underpaid. -- John On May 8, 2008, at 9:20 AM, mariano.iglesias wrote: How is calling the documentation horrendous polite? You have any idea the amount of hours people take to write that, not to mention that is a community effort? I tell you, with the likes of you, I don't doubt anyone would call you names, disrespecting other's people valuable time like that. On May 8, 12:07 pm, benjam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: perfectly valid questions for the simple fact that the documentation for CakePHP is horrendous and any documentation that is out there, is --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups CakePHP group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: OT: Shitty Community
On May 8, 2008, at 9:34 AM, AD7six wrote: I'd like to build a forum. How can I do that with cake please? What needs to be said: - Don't ask vague questions - Try to work on a solution a bit before asking What they need: - Help getting started with CakePHP - Learn how to fish (use the API, Bakery, Docs, etc.) How to better ask: - I'm building Auth into my forum, and I had a question about this function in the API - Anyone else built a forum in CakePHP? I'd be interested to learn about gotchas - New to CakePHP here - found this list from a buddy... Where do I go to get started? - I googled up a blog post about forum creation using Cake... I had a question about this part.. How not to answer it: - Dude, @*(#$ing google it - I don't have time for this, etc. - How many times has this very topic been documented/covered on the list/, etc - Gonna pay me to write your stupid app for you? How to answer it: - If you're looking to get started with CakePHP, [insert link to bakery, manual, my blog here] - In order to help, we'd need more information about what you're doing... [insert link to bin here' - We can't answer a question that vague at this point - go ahead and dive in - maybe we can help later on. fwiw -- John --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups CakePHP group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: OT: Shitty Community
On May 8, 2008, at 11:22 AM, Sliv (Tim MacAleese) wrote: I have to agree with Gwoo, I haven't seen any replies that weren't appropriate to the post being replied to. If you write a post that shows you haven't read the welcome blurb posted on the group front page that tells you to search first before asking, and links to the wiki pages with a ton of information, then you will get an equivalent response (a link to google, a link to the cookbook, etc.). If you write a post with an subject that has all the politeness of a slap in the face like sh**y community or losing faith in cake, etc. then you will get an equally offensive reply like there's the door, troll. If you choose words/topics that can be taken as personally offensive to the people who work on this project, then you will get a personally offensive reply. Actually, I'd be surprised if you could show me even one post that received a reply that was not appropriate... While I suppose it might be fair, I'm going to argue that it's actually not an appropriate response anymore. An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is blind --- Ghandi How about we try to be polite even if the other person isn't? That goes for both sides. -- John --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups CakePHP group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: CakePHP + Flex views
On May 7, 2008, at 7:36 AM, Adam Royle wrote: https://trac.cakefoundation.org/amf I've used this for a project and it worked really well. -- John On May 7, 6:26 pm, bob0 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, I am thinking about CakePHP and Flex interoperability. It would be nice if the V in MVC could be replaced with a Flex application. I am not just thinking about embedding Flex components into views, but about completely moving the presentation logic from html to flex. I am looking for a simple way to let flex communicate with the controller application logic, possibly without rewriting any custom controller action for serialization/deserialization of the data passed. Do you have any advice on how to accomplish this? Thank you for your help! Lorenzo Moretti. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups CakePHP group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Is the documentation at book.cakephp.org open source?
On May 7, 2008, at 9:24 AM, aranworld wrote: I really enjoy contributing to the official Cake Book, however, it is a very serious problem that the contribution and editing process is so obscure. The black box model absolutely does not work and significantly reduces the incentive to contribute. I have personally spent a lot of time working on various sections of the Cake Book. Some modifications appear, some don't. I don't get any real feedback on why some things appear and others don't. I have nothing to help me do a better job on future work. With Wikipedia, where I also have contributed a bit over the years, I get to see a very transparent chain of feedback and edits on my own contributions. This makes me much better at writing entries, and I have found that my quality level has improved due to past feedback. I think that if I ever wished the CakePHP docs were more like a Wiki, this kind of transparency is all I am asking for. I am not asking for the right to create my own articles or even the right to have my edits appear immediately. For the time it takes me to make quality contributions, what I ask for in return is a transparent editing and revision process. 1. We're working on better communication for Cookbook edits and revisions 2. If you have any specific questions, please feel free to contact me. Most edits have been great, but there's been some cases where I've been rejecting edits: - The edit is incorrect (code-wise) - The contribution is a complete rewrite of an existing section If there are other problems, I try to fix it before I approve it. For really long sections that have been completely rewritten without even checking with me, I can't do much about that if the writing style is too different, or if the structure of the contribution doesn't match what we have planned. -- John P.S. - Ditto to what Nate said. On May 7, 5:57 am, Mariano Iglesias [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you don't know what inflation is we have plenty of that in Argentina, and we can certainly spare some for you. -MI --- CakeFest: December, 2008 - Buenos Aires, Argentina -http://www.cakefest.org blog:http://www.MarianoIglesias.com.ar twitter:http://twitter.com/mgiglesias -Mensaje original- De: cake-php@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] En nombre de nate Enviado el: Miércoles, 07 de Mayo de 2008 08:17 a.m. Para: CakePHP Asunto: Re: Is the documentation at book.cakephp.org open source? Inflation. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups CakePHP group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Is the documentation at book.cakephp.org open source?
On May 7, 2008, at 10:09 AM, aranworld wrote: It really helped with the ACL Component section, when you just posted old content to use as a guideline. In general, if you in the dev team have an outline of how things should be structured, just throw up some empty sections. You already have done this to a certain extent, but if you have even more of an idea of structure, it would be helpful. In the case of a section that existed in the 1.1 manual, we'll do this (I'm not aware of any sections that aren't up at this point). With new sections, I don't want outlines on the public site - I'd rather only publish finished content. If you're wondering about contributing something (especially something you've already written for your blog, project, or classwork), please send me an email. I'd love to help you work something in. I am certainly guilty of writing long sections without ever checking. I truly don't mind if they are used or not, because for the most part, I am writing things down so that the information is clearer in my mind. In many cases, the opportunity to sit down and write something comes very unexpectedly, so there isn't time to check with anyone first -- but this is why it is so important that ANY ideas the dev team already have about how to organize the information should at a very minimum be up on the site. And of course, if we could also view the editing history of current sections, then we could get an idea of what type of style you are looking for. One enhancement we're thinking of adding is some sort of needs page so that can coordinate new sections a bit better. I've already had times where two people wrote the same section and submitted it. It's the most pleasant sort of dilemma, but we want to cut down on needless parallel efforts as much as we can. Thanks, John On May 7, 8:44 am, John David Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On May 7, 2008, at 9:24 AM, aranworld wrote: I really enjoy contributing to the official Cake Book, however, it is a very serious problem that the contribution and editing process is so obscure. The black box model absolutely does not work and significantly reduces the incentive to contribute. I have personally spent a lot of time working on various sections of the Cake Book. Some modifications appear, some don't. I don't get any real feedback on why some things appear and others don't. I have nothing to help me do a better job on future work. With Wikipedia, where I also have contributed a bit over the years, I get to see a very transparent chain of feedback and edits on my own contributions. This makes me much better at writing entries, and I have found that my quality level has improved due to past feedback. I think that if I ever wished the CakePHP docs were more like a Wiki, this kind of transparency is all I am asking for. I am not asking for the right to create my own articles or even the right to have my edits appear immediately. For the time it takes me to make quality contributions, what I ask for in return is a transparent editing and revision process. 1. We're working on better communication for Cookbook edits and revisions 2. If you have any specific questions, please feel free to contact me. Most edits have been great, but there's been some cases where I've been rejecting edits: - The edit is incorrect (code-wise) - The contribution is a complete rewrite of an existing section If there are other problems, I try to fix it before I approve it. For really long sections that have been completely rewritten without even checking with me, I can't do much about that if the writing style is too different, or if the structure of the contribution doesn't match what we have planned. -- John P.S. - Ditto to what Nate said. On May 7, 5:57 am, Mariano Iglesias [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you don't know what inflation is we have plenty of that in Argentina, and we can certainly spare some for you. -MI --- CakeFest: December, 2008 - Buenos Aires, Argentina -http://www.cakefest.org blog:http://www.MarianoIglesias.com.ar twitter:http://twitter.com/mgiglesias -Mensaje original- De: cake-php@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] En nombre de nate Enviado el: Miércoles, 07 de Mayo de 2008 08:17 a.m. Para: CakePHP Asunto: Re: Is the documentation at book.cakephp.org open source? Inflation. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups CakePHP group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Is the documentation at book.cakephp.org open source?
On May 6, 2008, at 2:39 AM, Marcin Domanski wrote: Hey The content is owned by the Cake Software Foundation (...) Can you elaborate why is that ? Why not use GPL ? GFDL ? Creative Commons ? For me it's wierd that a community contributed documentation cannot be used by the community without an approval. Mostly because we don't want 17 different copies of the content out on the web in different forms. You're very welcome to write about cake, but the content in the manual is meant to be reviewed and contributed to in an official setting. What did you want to use it for? -- John --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups CakePHP group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Is the documentation at book.cakephp.org open source?
On May 6, 2008, at 7:47 AM, Sliv wrote: Just a guess, but probably for forking wiki's. That's exactly why we don't allow that. :) I hope you can see why that'd be a problem. -- John --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups CakePHP group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Is the documentation at book.cakephp.org open source?
On May 6, 2008, at 7:50 AM, the_woodsman wrote: I second the urgent need for more wiki like features in the Cook Book - I've made a few alterations and comments on the content, but having no idea if any of them were ever accepted, or indeed if the book has even been updated in the last week/month/year, it's hard to be motivated to do more. A few wiki features relating to recent changes, your changes etc (at least a revision log of some kind) would make all the difference, and might put an end to all the calls for a traditional wiki. If the source for the book was easily available it would encourage people to add new features, fix tickets, etc etc. Please, to all those involved in creating the cook book - don't take this the wrong way, If I didn't think the book was great idea I wouldn't have added content, or bothered posting this! Yeah no worries. We're working on it, so please be patient as we move things along. Its always been a battle between working on the content itself, and enhancing the app... I also need to add some things for translators so they can see if a page has changed since it's been translated. -- John --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups CakePHP group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: CakePlus - On the top of CakePHP
On May 5, 2008, at 9:51 AM, Dardo Sordi Bogado wrote: The linux kernel. Sweet. I've been looking for a place to backup my funny videos collection. Imagine being able to have them at my fingertips on *any* linux machine I sit down to!! Thanks for the tip. -- John On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 12:47 PM, Chris Hartjes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 11:32 AM, R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On May 5, 6:07 pm, Chris Hartjes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 11:09 AM, R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Community: 1. 100% open (svn, wiki, Google groups) I'm wondering if by this you mean that anyone who wants can have commit privileges to the repository? Yes, In developers we trust HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. Maybe I shouldn't laugh. Okay, I will just ignore what you are saying as the output of someone who has no idea how any successful open source project works. If you can point out ONE successful large open source project (yes, CakePHP is a large open source project) that allows unfettered commit access to their repository then maybe I would take you a little more seriously. If that makes me a fascist, so be it. I pity in advance the person responsible for integrating submissions and resolving code conflicts in your project. -- Chris Hartjes Internet Loudmouth Motto for 2008: Moving from herding elephants to handling snakes... @TheKeyBoard: http://www.littlehart.net/atthekeyboard --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups CakePHP group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: CakePlus - On the top of CakePHP
On May 5, 2008, at 10:08 AM, Dardo Sordi Bogado wrote: Chris, As you have a copy of full history, you can commit. You can't push to Linus repository, as he didn't trust you. But he pulls directly from the ones he trust, and examine the changes he thinks are worth integrating. And there isn't a central repository from where you get the source, most people use Linus, because they trust his work, but you can use Alan Cox or Andrew Morton repos, or anyone you trust. See, you still thinking in a centralized way. If you think of patches in Trac as other pseudo repositories, this is exactly how CakePHP works right now. -- John And John, you are looking for the MOB branch ;) Browse http://repo.or.cz and find for a poject using it, then push your videos there. /me commits his Terry Tate vids --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups CakePHP group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Is Cake 1.2 ready to use in production?
On May 5, 2008, at 12:35 PM, bittersweet wrote: Hi, It's been a year since Cake 1.2 rolled out, and it's still in Beta. I wonder if now it's a good time to upgrade. We are working on internationalization of our site and facing the decision whether to upgrade to use Cake's 1.2 and get it for free, or we will do it on our own. What do you say folks? Been using 1.2 in production for months. -- John --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups CakePHP group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: I don't understand how internationalization works in CakePHP.
On May 5, 2008, at 4:05 PM, b logica wrote: You're suggesting i write the documentation for something i do not understand? I do. It's the best way to learn, and it's the best way for us to get docs that are targeted to new people. If you need help reviewing it, I'm available. :) -- John Docs Monkey --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups CakePHP group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Development/Production setup with databases
I run some detection logic in bootstrap to see what server I'm on, and set a constant that tells the system where I'm at. In database.php I have a few class variables to specify each of my db setups (staging, qa, production). Then in AppModel, I specify $useDbConfig using my constant so that all my models use the right DB setup. -- John On May 2, 2008, at 10:19 AM, basstech wrote: After reading through the configuration documentation, it is nice that CakePHP supports multiple database configurations. However, I am wondering if there is an easy way to simply turn on one configuration over another across the entire application. In the documentation it says: The $default connection array is used unless another connection is specified by the $useDbConfig property in a model. Does this mean that in every model of my entire application I will need to specify that I want to use the development connection? Or can I simply set this once, and it will apply application-wide? If so, how is this best accomplished? Thanks CJ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups CakePHP group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: how do I stop the SQL queries from display in AJAX calls?
Use:
Configure::write('debug', '1');
That will show errors, but not SQL debugging output.
-- John
On Apr 29, 2008, at 9:42 AM, MarcS wrote:
Hi,
How can I stop the SQL queries from being displayed at the bottom of
the page in AJAX calls.
Up until now I've always used
Configure::write('debug', '0');
for ajax cals.This, however, make cake not show any error messages
which also sucks. I only want to stop the SQL queries from being
displayed.
How can I do that?
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
CakePHP group.
To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Looking for the Rapid in Cakephp
In order to help, we'll need to see what your model code, your HTML form, and your controller action look like. It's normal to spend some time learning how things work together: you just have to be patient while you're learning the ropes. It's that way with any technology, including plain old php itself. -- John On Apr 29, 2008, at 7:29 AM, gstrock wrote: I thought I was going to be smart and use CakePHP for my next project, here I am in week 2 and I've had to bow out and let someone else take over. I thought I would get a jump start by using cake to handle all the messy database stuff and I find myself mired in figuring out how to use cake. yet all around me on the net I see people raving how cake saved their lives. I have a simple form to gather user info. I'm getting this error message from cake: This field cannot be left blank. This is perplexing because the field is not blank, it's got an address in it and I told cake to validate it as alpha-numeric. there is also this message that appears twice at the very top of the page: Empty regular expression [CORE/cake/libs/validation.php, line 774] Searching through the cake group someone says that the 1.2 beta up on site is old and recommends grabbing a nightly build, so I do that. Granted that takes care of the phone number field, for which I no longer get the cannot be blank message, but there's at least 4 other fields on the page with that message. All the other posts I see about this field cannot be blank are asking how to change that message with one of their own. Am I doing something wrong or am I seeing a bug in cake? at what point does the rapid kick in? I have another form that by the default 'bake' appears as text input but I want it to be a drop down menu. I have to wade through the api to figure this one out. I'm just wondering if it's worth it, or should I just go back to plain old php? - greg strockbine --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups CakePHP group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Looking for the Rapid in Cakephp
On Apr 29, 2008, at 10:15 AM, gstrock wrote: thanks for the insight. I think I'm just having a bad day. I realize with everything there is a learning curve. I guess I just thought it would be next to nothing for cake. :-) Actually, my project has 1 database with 4 tables, so it's a good little task to try cake out on, I think. My perseverance machine just needs another cup of coffee. :-) The CakePHP IRC channel on freenode is another good resource. Sometimes it's good to have immediate help. I'm in there now if you want to work on this. #cakephp -- John --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups CakePHP group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: First Doubt with CakePHP
On Apr 24, 2008, at 2:47 PM, Chris Hartjes wrote: On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 4:15 PM, Nicolás Andrade [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I mean I can separate tasks using a SiteAdmin folder, password protected. But in CakePHP, I don't know how to separate things. Any user which registers himself will use the User model; and me as administrator will use User model too to administrate the site. How is it done using CakePHP philosophy? Auth component and admin routing. Lots of good tutorials on using both those things. Also remember that files on the system don't really match up to files in CakePHP. You use routes and things to get certain code to execute, rather than placing files in certain folders. You can get pretty far with the default route setup, but it's something to keep in mind. -- John --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups CakePHP group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Error Cakephp (Failed opening required 'config\core.php' )
Run in debug mode so that the cached class paths will be overwritten.
I've run into something like this in the past and running in debug
mode (or deleting cache files) has helped.
-- John
On Apr 24, 2008, at 12:42 PM, Quitos wrote:
Hi everyone, again requesting your help in CakePHP topic in its
version 1.5, you will see, I'm changing a site and configured in cake
and I'm moving to another server but I have problems with the current
configuration my folders are as follows:
Cake Librery:
C:/cake
Php Librery:
C:/php
Pear Librery:
C:/php/pear
C:/php/includes
Apache Server:
C:/Archivos de programa/Apache Group/Apache2/htdocs/misitio/
misitio/
The error:
Warning: require(config/core.php) [function.require]: failed to
open stream: No such file or directory in
C:/cake/cake/bootstrap.php on line 34
Fatal error: require() [function.require]: Failed opening
required 'config/core.php' (include_path='C:/cake;C:/Archivos de
programa/Apache Group/Apache2/htdocs/misitio/misitioApp/;.;C:/php/
pear;c:/php/includes') in C:/cake/cake/bootstrap.php on line 34
Files that I midified:
misitio/index.php
misitio/cron_dispatcher.php
With:
define('ROOT', C:.DS.Archivos de programa.DS.Apache
Group.DS.Apache2.DS.htdocs.DS.misitio.DS.vistas);
define('APP_DIR', misitioApp);
define('CAKE_CORE_INCLUDE_PATH', C:.DS.cake);
And the Apache Server File
httpd.conf
With:
LoadModule rewrite_module modules/mod_rewrite.so
DocumentRoot C:/Archivos de programa/Apache Group/Apache2/
htdocs
Directory C:/Archivos de programa/Apache Group/Apache2/
htdocs
There is something that i'm worng but waht is it?
I nedd my Virtual host, in the apache httpd.conf???
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
CakePHP group.
To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: OT: What code editors do you all use?
On Apr 8, 2008, at 10:09 AM, John R wrote: Just curious .. The only features I really use in an editor are code highlighting and FTP ... all of the crazy PHP IDEs are incredibly bloated for me. What do you all use? This topic has been covered a few times before - check the list archives. :) -- John --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Cake PHP group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: PHP Speedy
On Apr 7, 2008, at 8:10 AM, Caio Vitor wrote: Does anyone know PHP Speedy? How to implement it on cakephp? More information: http://aciddrop.com/2008/01/21/boost-your-website-load-time-with-3-lines-of-code/ Might work by sticking his stuff in your vendors folder, including it, and making the finish() call in a callback (afterRender, maybe?). -- John --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Cake PHP group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: We're under attack
On Mar 28, 2008, at 10:51 AM, Stephen Orr wrote: I'm sure I won't be the first person to have seen this... or the last to respond to it: http://www.akbkhome.com/blog.php/View/161/CakePHP_taking_it_apart_and_the_better_written_world_of_sinners.html Seems like this guy just doesn't like frameworks. Ours in particular. Yeah, and he really likes PEAR. Enough said. -- John --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Cake PHP group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: acl.php : Call to undefined function uses()
On Mar 27, 2008, at 2:52 PM, jamest_amr wrote: Works perfectly, thanks Stonez. Looks like the IMB tutorial is wrong. That accursed International Maritime Bureau is always posting outdated CakePHP tutes. :( -- John --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Cake PHP group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Image Upload Behavior
On Mar 25, 2008, at 9:22 AM, Chris Hartjes wrote: On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 9:39 AM, rachev.preslav [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am having some problems with this behavior, more specifically in the behavior's beforeSave() function. If you expect some help, how about telling people the actual problem you are experiencing. As smart as the people on this list are, there are no mind readers. Well, none that will admit it anyway. Hello, I'm psychic. -- John --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Cake PHP group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: CookBook PDF
On Mar 8, 2008, at 6:01 PM, Chris Hartjes wrote: On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 6:14 PM, Mech7 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The API in pdf would be nice too :p A pony to ride would be nice as well, but that's not happening either. The API is likely to change before 1.2 is labeled as being final, so I would say providing a PDF of it is a waste. It shouldn't be too hard too make it dynamically create PDFs on the fly - allowing for a snapshot of the live document at any point. We're planning on a number of different output formats (HTML and PDF first), but we're taking it one step at a time. -- John --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Cake PHP group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: CookBook PDF
On Mar 8, 2008, at 9:04 PM, the_woodsman wrote: I think it would be great if the big name contributors to the group welcomed ideas more openly! Resistance is usually a side effect of being over stressed. When you already feel like you've dumped too much into something and people blue-sky for you, it's a little frustrating sometimes. We're an open community but please realize that you're essentially brainstorming on how to use other's time. Maybe I've just got thicker skin, but one thing you'll need to get used to here is Chris'... uh... frank way of expressing his views. :) I also think that a lot of people would benefit from at least an easily printable form of the book and api - and perhaps the cake devs don't entirely disagree, seeing as the new cook book has options for displaying the entire manual in one page. No, we've planned on other output formats from the beginning. It's a resource and priority issue. Once we've got some other priority issues out of the way the PDF stuff will come next. As will all things Cake (and open source in general) these things usually happen 1000 times faster if someone offers to actually offers to code it up. It really shouldn't be too bad. There's a plethora of PDF libraries out there, something we just need to hook up to a traversal of the book tree(s). Another 'living and breathing document', the wikipedia, thinks people find a printable version useful too. Asking for a DF version of the manual is not asking for the moon on a stick! No I agree. It's coming, but I'm not exactly sure when just now. Thanks for the input. -- John On Mar 9, 1:01 am, Chris Hartjes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 6:14 PM, Mech7 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The API in pdf would be nice too :p A pony to ride would be nice as well, but that's not happening either. The API is likely to change before 1.2 is labeled as being final, so I would say providing a PDF of it is a waste. The Cookbook is a living and breathing document, so again, creating a PDF of that would be a waste of time as well. Just my opinion. -- Chris Hartjes Internet Loudmouth Motto for 2008: Moving from herding elephants to handling snakes... @TheKeyBoard:http://www.littlehart.net/atthekeyboard --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Cake PHP group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Table-less model associations
On Feb 25, 2008, at 12:07 PM, Bob Mattax wrote: I have a situation where I'm interacting w/ an API where I have to use some webservices to access data from a User and Account table. I've figured out for the most part how to handle the models just by themselves, but am looking for information on whether I will be able to take advantage of hasOne, belongsTo associations between table-less models. I have some more models available via the API that I would like to explore having associations to as well. Is there any way to do this? AFAIK, this is where DataSources can really help out. Someone else might know more about the specifics -- John --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Cake PHP group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Automagically
On Feb 23, 2008, at 8:34 AM, jim starboard wrote: Please stop using the term automagically in the docs. It's an embarrassment. Please feel free to imagineer some actionable deliverable we can replace it with. Once you've done so we may be incentivized to leverage your value-add. In all seriousness: 1. There's a proper channel for critique - the mailing list isn't it. 2. Since this is an open source project, there's a certain amount of civility we require in our communications. Thanks, John --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Cake PHP group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: getting started - couple of questions
On Feb 22, 2008, at 6:14 PM, jim starboard wrote:
I'm setting up my first cakePHP site. Let me explain what I have so
far. Am I off to the right start? Then there are some other questions
below.
I'm doing my home page first. I have the following
views\layouts\default.thtml
- this is the general site html that's repeated everywhere. I have
the title_for_layout and the content_for_layout properties, as well as
a renderElement('navbar') for my navigation element. There'll surely
be some other renderElement calls.
views\home\index.thtml
- the view of the homepage, nothing in there yet.
controllers\home_controller.php
- Is this naming convention cool? It seems like it would be odd to
name it homes_controller.php. Right now there is just the index
method.
I have not created my home.php model and I got an error saying it
didn't exist. I know I will need one, but just out of curiosity, what
If I never reference my home model in my home controller?
You'll need to set $uses = null in your HomeController so Cake stops
expecting something that doesn't exist.
I was sort
of thinking I would use more fine grained models like user, game, etc.
So, do I reference those child models from the home model?
If they're associated, yes.
-- John
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Cake
PHP group.
To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: why change the name?
On Feb 22, 2008, at 6:21 PM, jim starboard wrote: In a view you have $content_for_layout but in the controller you set it with $layout. What is the motivation behind this? They're completely different uses from completely different perspectives. The stuff you want injected into a layout is called $content_for_layout. If you want to switch to a non-default layout in a controller action you set $this-layout to the name of that layout. Seems pretty intuitive to me. -- John --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Cake PHP group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Model that is not tied to a table
On Feb 22, 2008, at 6:26 PM, jim starboard wrote: I'm trying to understand how to set up the homepage of my site. I would like to have my home_controller access various tables in the database, eg users, games, etc. The problem is, I'm required to have a home model, If you set $uses to null, a Home model is not required. but there is no homes table. So I get an error. What's the best way to have a model that represents or is composed of multiple tables, but has no table of its own name? As far as I know, there's no need for multiple-table models - if you want a non-database table model, set $useTable to false in the model. (please check out the model and controller sections of the documentation - I think many of the questions you are posing are covered there...) -- John --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Cake PHP group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Model that is not tied to a table
On Feb 22, 2008, at 6:59 PM, jim starboard wrote: As far as I know, there's no need for multiple-table models Why? that seems overly simplistic. It is. :) ORM should allow a data representation where setting a single property might update several tables. It does. Check into model callbacks in the manual. Why should my controller need to access multiple models when I should be able to access a single model that in turn references several tables (or child models). It may, but you can set it up how you'd like. I can't recommend touching too many tables with a single operation - if your domain logic for a given set of data is strewn and shared between classes, it's harder to place things and fix problems. -- John --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Cake PHP group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: book/manual
On Feb 20, 2008, at 2:19 PM, Samuel DeVore wrote: Book is the planned new manual for cakephp 1.2 John wrote up a little summary at http://bakery.cakephp.org/articles/view/what-s-up-docs Manual is for cakephp 1.1 and is does not have user added comments and really doesn't support contributions or comments By the way, the 1.1 content is being moved over and the Cookbook will eventually replace manual.cakephp.org. -- John --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Cake PHP group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: when to use Configure::method() over a DEFINE?
On Feb 8, 2008, at 4:49 PM, johnnyice wrote: looks like you put global constants in the bootstrap.php file. -- This file is ideal for a number of common bootstrapping tasks: 1. Defining convenience functions 2. Registering global constants 3. Defining additional model, view, and controller paths -- from: http://tempdocs.cakephp.org/#TOC42845 BUT for variables like the number of search results per page. Would you put that in your bootstrap file too or as a design preference add it to the Configure namespace? You can add defines *or* Configure calls in bootstrap. Bootstrap is probably the place to do what you want. A define is probably what you want, since number of search results isn't going to change dynamically in the middle of a request. $0.02, -- John --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Cake PHP group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: when to use Configure::method() over a DEFINE?
On Feb 8, 2008, at 3:33 PM, johnnyice wrote: this may be more of a design/convention question, but I was curious as to when other bakers decide to add a configuration variable to Cake's Configure over DEFINE (of course both would probably be done in / config/core.php) Depends on whether or not you want it to be constant (unchangeable), or something you can play with during a request. I have a couple default values I'd like to set. For example I want to set a date field in the db to the current GMT time or I have an initial state for user activity that only changes once they login. Say the default state for user activity is 5 (some arbitrary num). Would you put that in config, define, or database? What about a default date (say gmnow() that you can't use as a default in the db) Depends how much it'll change and when. fwiw, John --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Cake PHP group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: CakePHP guide
Rajesh, The new application is very wiki-like. It allows easy contributions (hopefully). It's different in that it has more structure (data is in tree form) and there's an approval/revision process built in. We hope it'll make things easier - hopefully we can have something to show really soon. -- John On Feb 7, 2008, at 12:42 PM, Rajesh wrote: I ever think that you understood what i wrote. i just tried to explain what would ease the pressure on you guys. If there was a discussion previously on wiki, you could have just said NO for a wiki or Its on the way but not they way you had said. I just started cakePHP for about 4 months now and i don't or i can't read all the postings in this group. I just search if i wanted something.I just found out that there was a previous discussion on wiki and what _psychic_ had replied. Given the duration of my learning in cakephp, i will not be able to write pages of documentation at this point, but atleast i can help find/edit something that is not correct or that can be enhanced to my knowledge. On Feb 7, 1:58 pm, Chris Hartjes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 7, 2008 1:03 PM, Rajesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just a suggestion, why not open up a WIKI where everyone can contribute and have a set of people as Moderators, that way sending emails back and forth for documentation would reduce and also that would ease the load on the people writing the current documentation. -Rajesh Again with the same old tired refrain about the inexplicable need for a wiki. Does nobody read the emails that our overworked and underappreciated documentation expert _psychic_ puts out? Because in those emails he's talked several times about a wiki-like solution that is on the way. If you have your heart set on a wiki, then put one up yourself and tell the list about it. Given the level of participation in the current documentation project, I'd be surprised if you get anything of value posted. -- Chris Hartjes Internet Loudmouth Motto for 2008: Moving from herding elephants to handling snakes... @TheKeyBoard:http://www.littlehart.net/atthekeyboard --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Cake PHP group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: CakePHP guide
On Feb 7, 2008, at 6:17 AM, MonkeyGirl wrote: snip find a better way of doing something and I'll update my guide to do it that way instead. If I was writing official documentation, I'd feel like I was saying this is how it's *supposed* to be done, how it *should* be done. I don't feel confident enough to make that claim. There's plenty of eyes that go on official docs before they go out the door. Helping the official docs effort doesn't mean we give you the keys and walk away. No one (especially at first) really has publishing power like that. It's a collaborative effort. Most people submitting docs just hand me what they have. I edit the submissions for (grammar, spelling) voice, style, etc but we also edit for completeness and correctness. Sometimes I'll hand it back with some suggestions, but I mostly try to iron out what I can in order to make the submission process easier. Being too new shouldn't be a problem, nor is a worry about accuracy. If anyone else can get the documentation and code commenting to the stage where us early adopters of CakePHP 1.2 can see what each method of each class is doing in sufficient detail, I'm sure we can all group together and help with the official documentation. I'd be happy to, and it looks like others are too. Experience shows that they aren't. Experience shows that I *can't* get someone else to do that. It wasn't that way with 1.1, at least. Forgive me for being frank, but no one likes to help in the docs. Most people prefer to either 1: complain without helping, or 2: publish things themselves. The problem with 1 is obvious, and the problem with 2 is that we're unfocused as a community. Why are people publishing their own rather than jumping in to an official effort? It's probably some combination of these: 1. The submission process isn't clear (my fault) 2. Docs are a moving target for beta software (my fault) 3. People enjoy the credit and traffic self-published material generates 4. The docs situation is too bad to be helped (my fault), or 5. The docs situation isn't as bad as people think. I'm about ready to try the experiment of quitting, mostly to see if I'm the bottleneck. Maybe that's the problem, I don't really know. It's hard to see how I'm really doing, because I don't feel like I've ever really had an abundance of support. In two years, there's only a handful of people that have contributed multiple times (that aren't already overwhelmed with core team responsibilities). In any case, this is really like waiting to take your medicine until you feel well. Why would we need documentation if everyone can see what each method of each class is doing in sufficient detail ? If we're doing that, I think we're nearly done. It's rather obvious we need help *now*. :) Is this something we can do together? I hope I'm not out of line with these suggestions, I'm just trying to help bridge the gap between those who are great at writing code, and those like myself who are perhaps not so good at programming, but are still good at explaining how things work in simpler terms. Right now I'm working on getting our new docs application online and ready for everyone. Everyone else is at Cakefest this week, so it's been hard to make decisions on things. Stay tuned, I'm working as best I can to solve these problems. I'm banking on the guess that this docs app will help out the docs process, so here's hoping. Thanks for the input, -- John --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Cake PHP group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: CakePHP guide
On Feb 6, 2008, at 9:25 AM, phpjoy wrote: That attitude is the exact difference between ExtJS which is more community-driven and Zend, which is cold and company-driven. ExtJS succeeds because the community-force behind it drives it forward, because people make tons of plugins. Because they don't need a bakery, they have a simple forum with a WORKING SEARCH. How exactly does a forum do what the Bakery does? What are you talking about? You should check how people are turning into staff/core contributers there and get a job if they're good enough. I didn't see anyone of the core-staff in there bitch about how stupid people are, how questions are being asked over and over again. Those messages made by users are either deleted or ignored. Um, from what I can tell, Nate was *not* complaining about anything besides the lack of unfocused documentation efforts. Please put your straw man away and read his message again. I think that only an idiot would be happy to contribute to anything after such a stupid comment. I like CakePHP as a product (otherwise I wouldn't be here), but nate, you should work on your human skills. Settle down - I think you've completely over-reacted. Nate's comment wasn't a flame, but yours was. -- John On Feb 4, 6:48 pm, nate [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The only comment or criticism I have is that it's a shame that such efforts aren't put towards the official documentation. John gets little to no help from outside contributors, and the only way the community has seen fit to contribute is with scattered, one-off tutorials at various levels of currency, completeness and accuracy. I don't mean to denigrate your efforts here, but I really think that efforts like these often serve to scatter and spread the pool of useful information thinner, which just makes it harder to find, which makes people more frustrated. On Feb 3, 1:01 pm, MonkeyGirl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi! Just to let you all know, I've finally written enough of the CakePHP guide that I'm working on to warrant putting it online at last. It's available here: http://cakephp.bytenoise.co.uk/ It's only the first three chapters so far, but hopefully I should have a lot more there over the next few weeks. Any comments and constructive criticism are both welcomed. Thanks, Zoe. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Cake PHP group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: CakePHP guide
On Feb 6, 2008, at 10:03 AM, Baz wrote: I can't help but feel that I'm not the only one who feels that way. What would qualify one to be able to contribute to the Official Cake documentation or the Bakery? There is no qualification. New people have the distinct advantage of being able to point out weaknesses. If nothing else, let us know what needs strength or better coverage. The Bakery probably isn't for noobs, but helping proof and suggest sections to the existing docs is extremely helpful to me. -- John --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Cake PHP group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: CakePHP guide
On Feb 4, 2008, at 10:48 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think it's a good start Zoe. I disagree with Nate on one point, I think the more examples and tutorials on Cake the better, regardless of where they exist. CakePHP desperately needs better documentation and once it has it, it's adoption rate might really skyrocket. Unfortunately this hasn't been the primary focus of the CakePHP core group and has contributed to a loss of momentum for what promises to be a great framework soluton. I side with Nate. More isn't necessarily better, and while we'll always appreciate good press, blog articles, etc what we need most is focused effort on the official docs. It's like building a skyscraper by having everyone start a small building in their own town. Any documentation is great as it provides additional perspectives on how to accomplish something. Sometimes a perspective only a few degrees shifted from the official view is enough to make things click. Again, it's a battle of good vs. best. If you think what Cake needs is docs help, your efforts are best spent in the official docs effort. In regards to the official documentation for v1.2, I think it has come along nicely. However it needs to be easier to find on the Cake site. There are no references to it on Cake's home page (that I can find) and if you click on the manual link you get the 1.1 manual. I think increasing exposure to the 1.2 manual by at least adding a link at the beginning of the online 1.1 manual (something like click here to view the in-progress manual for Cake 1.2) would expose the new manual to more users which might have the side-effect of increase outside contributions to it. We'll do that once it's done. It's still very important to realize that Cake 1.2 is beta software. I view it as a success to have so much before the final release, but I don't yet want to promote something that isn't complete yet. -- John --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Cake PHP group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: CakePHP guide
On Feb 4, 2008, at 6:23 PM, Keith wrote: On Feb 4, 11:48 am, nate [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John gets little to no help from outside contributors, and the only way the community has seen fit to contribute is with scattered, one-off tutorials at various levels of currency, completeness and accuracy. I agree with Nate here. I put things on my site and document them as I find incomplete tutorials, inaccuracies, or things I flat out couldn't find suitable answers for on the internet. The file upload in 1.2 is a great case in point. The documentation that exists covers solutions to niche problems (ajax uploading, image manipulation after upload, etc.). I think if there was a roadmap for the documentation that people could sign up for and create documentation that subject it'd go much more smoothly. However, I don't see any great organizational framework to join up with other than a general call to help contribute. I think more people would step forward if they knew what topics were desired. http://cakeforge.org/plugins/wiki/index.php?id=53type=g -- John --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Cake PHP group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Beyond black and white validation?
Can you tell us more about why you need warnings? The simplest
alternative might be a completely alternate approach.
-- John
On Jan 25, 2008, at 8:19 AM, grigri wrote:
I am using 1.2 (have been for a while), and I'm very impressed by its
validation system. But I can't see how I can do what I need without
more code. I'll try and explain.
The basic system of warnings could be implemented by having a
beforeValidate() method (in a Behavior or Model) which enumerates the
$validate array [*], checks for entries with a specific option (such
as 'warning' = true), then cross-checks that against a different key
in the data (corresponding to the 'ignore warning' checkbox), and if
present, temporarily removes it from the validation array (setting
'on' to any value other that 'create', 'update' or null would
accomplish this).
[ * The orderings of validation and warning entries would be crucial
for this to work properly, because an error must always override a
warning. ]
At this point, it can flag the field as failing, but when the form
helper outputs the error message, I need it to output an extra
checkbox dynamically with a specific name and value. Although I could
code this directly in the beforeValidate() [a bit messy, but still
possible], the FormHelper::input() method, when calling
FormHelper::error(), ALWAYS escapes the HTML, so I'd be rendering HTML
code not real working HTML.
I could of course code the error message in a specific way (like
{{{WARNINGDATA:encoded_data_here}}}) then do a preg_replace_callback
in a helper afterRender() method, but it's quite a messy way of doing
things, with a possible performance hit. Plus I'd have to add the
helper in the controller; which should really be agnostic to this
information.
I'm wondering if I'm making this more complicated than it needs to be.
Based on what I've explained I'd like to achieve, can you see a
different (possibly simpler) way of doing it?
Thanks
On Jan 25, 2:20 pm, John David Anderson (_psychic_)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 25, 2008, at 6:38 AM, grigri wrote:
I'd like to hear some suggestions on cakeifying an existing system.
Cake's validation is wonderful, but it only allows yes this is
good
and no it isn't. I've got an application I need to port that has
automated warnings built in for some fields.
Have you checked out validation in 1.2? Multiple rules, pre build
validators, easy custom rules.. I think you can easily do what you
need in 1.2.
-- John
Although my system is quite specific (it's a historic family tree,
so
most of the warnings are like Warning: this marriage is between two
cousins / brother and sister, are you sure?), I could see a generic
application, for example for URLs (warning: this URL returns a 404,
are you sure you want to add it?) or passwords (this is a crappy
password choice, use it at your own risk...).
My old system gave each warning generated a session-level id and
presented an appropriate checkbox in the field 'error' position. The
validation routine checked if the checkbox was checked for each
registered warning and ignored it if appropriate. If there were no
errors, and no unchecked warnings, the form went through.
My old system was not very flexible, a mish-mash of php includes and
whatnot, and I need to cakeify it.
So, any suggestions on how to introduce this functionality to cake,
without rewriting the form helper or model validations? I've got a
few
ideas but I'd like to hear input.
(Once I've got a solid normal foundation for it, I'd like to
extend
to js/ajax too, but this is definitely for later)
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Cake
PHP group.
To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Database design considerations
On Jan 25, 2008, at 3:11 PM, judouk wrote: ///sorry, gmail let me post it first before I'd finished and now that I've had the time to rethink what I was typing, I think I've solved my own problem ! snip CREATE TABLE jobs ( id int(10) not null auto_increment, typeofjob varchar(20) not null, primary key(id) ) type = myisam; CREATE TABLE action ( id int(10) not null auto_increment, job_id int(10) not null, action tinyint(1) null, description varchar(255) null, primary key(id) ) type = myisam; Surely I'd just use something like this and associate the two tables with a $belongsToMany Looks like Job hasMany Action, and Action belongs Job to me. HABTM requires an additional table (actions_jobs, if that's what you're really after). -- John --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Cake PHP group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Beyond black and white validation?
On Jan 25, 2008, at 6:38 AM, grigri wrote: I'd like to hear some suggestions on cakeifying an existing system. Cake's validation is wonderful, but it only allows yes this is good and no it isn't. I've got an application I need to port that has automated warnings built in for some fields. Have you checked out validation in 1.2? Multiple rules, pre build validators, easy custom rules.. I think you can easily do what you need in 1.2. -- John Although my system is quite specific (it's a historic family tree, so most of the warnings are like Warning: this marriage is between two cousins / brother and sister, are you sure?), I could see a generic application, for example for URLs (warning: this URL returns a 404, are you sure you want to add it?) or passwords (this is a crappy password choice, use it at your own risk...). My old system gave each warning generated a session-level id and presented an appropriate checkbox in the field 'error' position. The validation routine checked if the checkbox was checked for each registered warning and ignored it if appropriate. If there were no errors, and no unchecked warnings, the form went through. My old system was not very flexible, a mish-mash of php includes and whatnot, and I need to cakeify it. So, any suggestions on how to introduce this functionality to cake, without rewriting the form helper or model validations? I've got a few ideas but I'd like to hear input. (Once I've got a solid normal foundation for it, I'd like to extend to js/ajax too, but this is definitely for later) --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Cake PHP group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Beyond black and white validation?
Not sure if this is a good idea or not, but let me think out load for
second.
What if you created an additional model just for warnings? You could
create all the rules just for that model, and use vanilla form helper
error messages, controller workflow, etc.
Then you could also validate that information against the real
model, looking for errors. Once you have all the validation errors
from both models you can reconcile them as you wish.
$0.02
-- John
On Jan 25, 2008, at 9:28 AM, grigri wrote:
Can you tell us more about why you need warnings?
Sure, no problem. It's quite simple really.
I need to set up some validation rules that, when not matched, don't
mean the data is definitely not valid and cannot be saved but the
data is probably not valid and I want to double-check if the user
really wants to do this.
A good example is in my family tree. The end-user-administrator of the
system isn't very computer-savvy, so it needs to be as forgiving as
possible (at his own request). It is highly unlikely that two cousins
marry, but it CAN happen. It's much more likely that the user messed-
up his notes and entered the wrong id, name, or whatever. But I need
to make sure. This is just one example, there are a lot more (like
marrying when the individual is under/over a certain age: it's more
likely that the user typed the wrong date than someone actually
marrying at 13, but again, it is possible).
I can easily implement these as validation rules, but then these edge-
cases would not be allowed at all. So if I do, I get a lot of emails/
phone calls from the client complaining that it's not flexible, and I
have to manually update the database. If I don't, the wrong data is
input and can potentially screw up the entire display (the dynamic
timeline and whatnot), and I eventually get an email / phone call from
the client and I have to check every entry in the database and fix it.
Either way, it makes the system (and therefore the company) look bad.
So, I'd like to implement a warnings system. Personally, I hate being
second-guessed by a computer (Are you sure you want to rename
this .txt file to a .php file? It could really damage your system...,
etc...), but the end-users this system is for (and probably a lot of
future clients) need more handholding.
-
Oh, and I've just realized I've contradicted myself here (controllers
should be agnostic / double-check if the user really wants to do
this).
Perhaps a rethink is in order...
On Jan 25, 4:04 pm, John David Anderson (_psychic_)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can you tell us more about why you need warnings? The simplest
alternative might be a completely alternate approach.
-- John
On Jan 25, 2008, at 8:19 AM, grigri wrote:
I am using 1.2 (have been for a while), and I'm very impressed by
its
validation system. But I can't see how I can do what I need without
more code. I'll try and explain.
The basic system of warnings could be implemented by having a
beforeValidate() method (in a Behavior or Model) which enumerates
the
$validate array [*], checks for entries with a specific option (such
as 'warning' = true), then cross-checks that against a different
key
in the data (corresponding to the 'ignore warning' checkbox), and if
present, temporarily removes it from the validation array (setting
'on' to any value other that 'create', 'update' or null would
accomplish this).
[ * The orderings of validation and warning entries would be crucial
for this to work properly, because an error must always override a
warning. ]
At this point, it can flag the field as failing, but when the form
helper outputs the error message, I need it to output an extra
checkbox dynamically with a specific name and value. Although I
could
code this directly in the beforeValidate() [a bit messy, but still
possible], the FormHelper::input() method, when calling
FormHelper::error(), ALWAYS escapes the HTML, so I'd be rendering
HTML
code not real working HTML.
I could of course code the error message in a specific way (like
{{{WARNINGDATA:encoded_data_here}}}) then do a
preg_replace_callback
in a helper afterRender() method, but it's quite a messy way of
doing
things, with a possible performance hit. Plus I'd have to add the
helper in the controller; which should really be agnostic to this
information.
I'm wondering if I'm making this more complicated than it needs to
be.
Based on what I've explained I'd like to achieve, can you see a
different (possibly simpler) way of doing it?
Thanks
On Jan 25, 2:20 pm, John David Anderson (_psychic_)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jan 25, 2008, at 6:38 AM, grigri wrote:
I'd like to hear some suggestions on cakeifying an existing
system.
Cake's validation is wonderful, but it only allows yes this is
good
and no it isn't. I've got an application I need to port that has
automated warnings built in for some fields.
Have you
Re: Business Benifit?
On Jan 24, 2008, at 2:36 PM, Doug @ Straw Dogs wrote: translate language=management In answer (devils advocate) to the sites sales pitch: No Configuration - Way too vague. == less maintenance cost (= less $ in the long run) Extremely Simple - One developer doesn't know how to use it. Time is money and no matter how simple it is, it will still require time to learn. == shallow learning curve for developers (= easy transition to a better solution) Active, Friendly Community - So what? Why do I care? I can do it == free documentation, free testing, free new features Along with this, if your top guy gets hit by a bus (or worse, hired by the competition), you have a pool of people you can go to in order to get help and documentation. in PHP - that has a huge community too. Best Practices - We've not used best practices before and its worked. So why change now? Because you can only dodge the bullet for so long. Keep doing the wrong thing, and it's gonna come back to haunt you. Guaranteed. OO - As above. Nothing more than a buzzword. Whats the point. Yada yada yada. == reusable code, better maintainability /translate Most of those translate into getting things out the door faster, and being more safe as far as a solid, documented codebase. fwiw, John --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Cake PHP group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Business Benifit?
On Jan 24, 2008, at 2:36 PM, Doug @ Straw Dogs wrote: snip Best Practices - We've not used best practices before and its worked. So why change now? OO - As above. Nothing more than a buzzword. Whats the point. Yada yada yada. I'd have to agree with Chris at some level. Any place that thinks OO is just a buzzword, and that Best Practices aren't important is going to run into some serious trouble in the not too far future. Run. -- John --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Cake PHP group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Beginning CakePHP book with Apress
On Jan 24, 2008, at 3:25 PM, Dave wrote: Hello all, Just wanted to share some great news... Apress has picked up my manuscript for a CakePHP book which will come out in July. Things are moving along nicely and I'm excited to contribute some documentation to the Cake community. The book is free?! ;) -- John --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Cake PHP group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Model/controller naming question - object name ends in 's' :
On Jan 12, 2008, at 3:08 PM, Tim wrote: Hi all, I'm a newbie to CakePHP, and a relative newbie to php. CakePHP looks like just what I was looking for :) The issue is with business objects that end with the character 's'. I have a model that i'd like to call lens. That would make the controller called lenss_controller, which is only a problem because it appears in the URL. It would also mean a database table called lenss. Is there a way to give everything sensible names? You can configure most anything, so yes. Right now my solution is to call the model len, the controller lens_controller, and the database table lens. Wont 'lenses' work? -- John --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Cake PHP group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: I would like to have a wiki on cakephp.org
How can you recruit maintainers and editors when the current docs team can't do that? I have some great help from great people, but no one seems to have the time to commit on a regular basis. A wiki represents a much higher maintenance cost, something I doubt you can muster. The core team definitely can't swing it, from what I can tell right now. Besides, there are already 170+ pages of docs for this transition phase. The tempdocs.cakephp.org site has been publicized on this list and is linked to from the 1.2.x branch home.ctp default view. There are a low amount of active docs tickets - what exactly will a wiki bring to the table (content-wise) that we don't already have a good start on? We're also completing testing a tool right now that allows people to contribute more easily - something that can be commented, submitted to, etc. I'm moving the material from tempdocs over to this new system that already does much of what you're asking for here, without the fatal disadvantages of a wiki. There's almost no chance a wiki will receive official CakePHP support, especially from me. It didn't work, the Bakery does work, and we're 90% of the way committed with another custom home-grown tool that is really looking to fit our needs. I don't want to dull your enthusiasm, I just want to channel it into something that will work better. If you'd like to improve the documentation for CakePHP, please contact me. Stay tuned, I hope to have something to show soon. -- John On Jan 7, 2008, at 5:46 AM, Kjell Bublitz wrote: Hi list and maintainers! As the topictitle says, i would like to see a wiki-revival. I like the bakery, but since we are all desperate for docs, good up-to-date examples and practices it would help the community if we had a Wiki again! I am also not for a Wiki that is swarmed by newcomers asking for help on the 101 but i also dont want to explain stuff more than twice (in chats or wherever), and i myself dislike hunting for good blog entries or the right topic in the groups. Can be very frustrating at times... you gotta admit that. I know from the past that the Wiki was a mess, but thats where we need to recrute/name moderators (an open sub-team maybe). You could count me in for that. A wiki version of the docs is absolutely necessary in such a long transition phase. There are so many changes and most devs want to use and learn 1.2 already. The docteam then could adopt the writings and compile it, readers could download/export a current draft, subscribe to pages using rss, etc .. But for this to work the general structure needs to be layed out from start (bakery is a good example: version info, type). With a well categorized layout we should be able to reach a good amount of quality! The old Wiki had no structure at all... Maybe in the beginning we should give all approved contributers from bakery write access to the wiki only. That would sort out the problem of having everybody creating pages at will. Later on we can remove this restriction after a good amount is ported/created within the new setup and we give everyone write access. Who wouldn't want the Manual Pages to be reviewed? :-) What you think? Best! Kjell m3nt0r Bublitz PS: please use mediawiki if you give it a (second) shot. The old wiki-soft was crap.. ^^ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Cake PHP group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Blog Tutorial
On Dec 29, 2007, at 6:51 AM, gobblez wrote: Perhaps the official tutorial should be un-deprecated? Maybe add comments where people can chime in, php.net or Bakery style? It's in the works. I'm moving manual content to the new system already. Would it really take more than 20 minutes to update it or move it to the Bakery (so people can add updates to the same page without the author lifting a finger) and change the link? Most likely, especially given the fact that it hasn't been done yet. I should mention that someone has taken the assignment and is currently working on upgrading the blog tute for 1.2, however. The repeated n00bie blog tutorial questions that bug you guys so much (enough to warrant internet tough guy sarcasm) could/should have been solved/prevented a long time ago. People shouldn't have to be familiar with some guy's third party blog for a workaround or solution. I totally agree. After so long and it being brought up all the time, you'd think somebody on the dev or doc team would notice. Now go ahead and reply to me with some sort of lecture where you talk about open source (as if people having trouble with the beginners tutorial are really capable of submitting a patch or making sense of trac) I think I will. You're mentioning it like that doesn't make it any less valid. If you are noticing critical problems that are easy to solve, that aren't being solved, I suppose that could mean at least one of two possible situations: 1. The Cake team is inept. 2. The Cake team is spread thin. Choose whichever suits you best. Beginners can feel free to submit solutions (especially documentation solutions) in whatever format they prefer. There is nothing stopping new people from submitting bits of documentation, or at least logging tickets. Right now we've only got a baker's dozen worth of tickets related to documentation. We're really focusing on doing better at that, so please feel free to jump in and help out there by submitting tickets. The very best solution is to supply some sample documentation to fix things, but even a note on what you think is missing is better than nothing. Most definitely better than a rant on the mailing list. and shift responsibilities away instead of considering that fixing the tutorial is a simple solution that makes sense and would benefit the project and is a no brainer that it should be done. kthxbai. Interesting to note that this tirade seems to try to shift that responsibility away from yourself as well. Given the no-brainer benefit of your proposal, one wonders why you haven't volunteered to complete it. The fact that you haven't yet may be the answer to why it isn't yet done. It's not a matter of brains it's a matter of priorities and available bandwidth. No, I can take responsibility for the state of the documentation. I don't expect the community to do it all, but I do expect those who complain to at least attempt to help out. You should also be aware of the fact that 1.2 is not yet even beta software. I think what we've got up at tempdocs.cakephp.org is not unreasonable, since technically you're using a developer version that was never meant to be as documented as it is anyway. Next time, please consider contributing in a positive manner. Thanks, John --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Cake PHP group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Setting Up Problems using Server
On Dec 19, 2007, at 10:02 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Everybody, I did a little site using cakephp. When I was on my computer, it was working. Then I did send to this server hostsys.com.br. The database is ok, because it shows the data, but the css and the rest doesn't appear. Here's the site. http://www.probolab.com.br/projetos/beta/ Here's the phpinfo: http://www.probolab.com.br/projetos/beta/phpinfo.php I need some help. Can someone tell me was is wrong? Cake usually expects Apache's mod_rewrite to be available and working. There are mountains of discussions on this - please search the list for more info. You may need to disable rewriting, as it looks like you're running on IIS. I think there have been some efforts to get rewrites working on IIS, but you'll need to hunt for those as well. -- John --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Cake PHP group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Will CakePHP be able to survive as the Zend Framework matures?
On Dec 16, 2007, at 9:59 PM, Action wrote: I've always used Cake as my primary framework, but the Zend Framework seems to be shaping up nicely. Most of its published criticisms have been dealt with since 1.0 and it has some very impressive features (webservices, etc.). The problem with ZF is its advertised strength: Hey look everyone at our kewl components. In my view ZF is not a framework, it's a subset of PEAR for web developers. There's no over-arching sense of where to put things. There aren't conventions and best practices. It is no more of a framework than PEAR is. To me, ZF is the pieces you use to build a website, not the framework and guide that CakePHP is. Given the fact that it's Zend and that there's an entire team of professional developers behind it, do you think this framework will become the industry standard for PHP? Also, do you think other frameworks such as CakePHP will die off as a result? Yeah it'll die right out. Projects without large corporate support always die out. Like the Ron Paul campaign. Or Linux. The reason I ask is because I question Cake's future. I've already spent a lot of time on this framework, but I don't want to waste time if something like Zend is going to become the standard. Have you seen a big uptake with ZF? If anything, interest in their framework is slowing. I won't pretend to be a technology prophet, but I see no indication of Cake going away anytime soon. Nor do I see any indication of the ZF becoming some sort of industry standard. Frankly, I think it's misleading of Zend to advertise their project as an MVC framework. Where exactly is the Zend_Model component? It's like handing me a plate of veggies and selling it as meat and potatoes. They've got some cool stuff in there (the Lucene and PDF stuff I've used in my Cake projects), but it's not MVC. Cake's releases are far more infrequent than Zend's and Cake's documentation is STILL horrible. It's about quality, not quantity. I'm also tiring of people crying about the docs. Right now, we have 170 completely rewritten printed pages of documentation for code that isn't even BETA. We have an article repository with thousands of community contributed articles. There are only a dozen or so documentation tickets that are active, and I have no regular contributors to the documentation creation process (outside of the CakePHP core team). Docs are in a pretty good state right now. It seems you're just parroting what you might have heard without really investigating the facts. Cake is on the up, ZF is on the flat, and docs are better than they've ever been. It's a great time to be a CakePHP user. -- John --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Cake PHP group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Will CakePHP be able to survive as the Zend Framework matures?
On Dec 17, 2007, at 12:22 PM, Jon Miller wrote: On Dec 17, 2007 3:30 PM, John David Anderson (_psychic_) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm also tiring of people crying about the docs. Right now, we have 170 completely rewritten printed pages of documentation for code that isn't even BETA. I've been struggling with Cake and yesterday found the tempdocs for 1.2 and it was like a lightbulb - they're brilliant, even if incomplete. Unlike the dreadfully sparse manual or API, they give real examples, just like the PHP.net docs. Comments like that are what allows me to keep working on the docs. Thanks. Yes, it's a complete rewrite with more emphasis on the high-level and with more examples. It's incomplete, but that's not so bad for pre- beta docs. We're closing in on things though. Please contact me if you'd like to help out. Unfortunately the existence of the docs is a bit of a secret. Despite having a big link to download 1.2 on the Cake homepage, there's no obvious link to the new docs on the Cake homepage, just to the old Cake manual. Sure it may not look as flashy, but if it has the info, who cares? It makes me wonder how many newbies are struggling just because they don't even know a secret new manual exists? In my view hiding the good docs away could really hurt takeup now that most people will be jumping straight to 1.2 True. I've added the link to the default CakePHP home.ctp - I hesitate to link to it too much because of it's temporary nature, but it's no secret (we've linked to it in announcements, etc.). Tell your friends. :) -- John --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Cake PHP group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: where to find cakephp developers?
On Dec 17, 2007, at 2:44 PM, joeradical wrote: I am looking for the best place to find seasoned cakephp guru's. I am rewriting our entire site for cake and may need additional help to speed up development. I need someone to make the template, someone to look at the old php code and translate it to cakephp and I need someone to help add new functions etc. There's always withcake.com If you know where to find these people at a reasonable cost it would help. Define reasonable. :) -- John --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Cake PHP group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: where to find cakephp developers?
On Dec 17, 2007, at 4:13 PM, francky06l wrote: Reasonable is a relative notion, such as beauty and perfection :-) It's quantifiable in some cases, though. For example, California reasonable and New York reasonable is very different from Utah resonable (alas). :) -- John On Dec 18, 12:07 am, John David Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Dec 17, 2007, at 2:44 PM, joeradical wrote: I am looking for the best place to find seasoned cakephp guru's. I am rewriting our entire site for cake and may need additional help to speed up development. I need someone to make the template, someone to look at the old php code and translate it to cakephp and I need someone to help add new functions etc. There's always withcake.com If you know where to find these people at a reasonable cost it would help. Define reasonable. :) -- John --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Cake PHP group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Stop Users From Going Back After Logout
On Dec 17, 2007, at 4:29 PM, Chris Hartjes wrote: On Dec 17, 2007 5:33 PM, MrG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Chris, I was looking for those two tutorials in your blog but can't find none. http://www.littlehart.net/atthekeyboard/2007/09/11/a-hopefully-useful-tutorial-for-using-cakephps-auth-component/ http://www.littlehart.net/atthekeyboard/2007/11/20/follow-up-to-a-hopefully-usefull-tutorial-for-using-cakephps-auth-component/ Hey those look like some good candidates for the manual... ;o) -- John --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Cake PHP group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Accelerating cakePHP
On Dec 15, 2007, at 1:12 PM, Chris Hartjes wrote: On Dec 15, 2007 3:00 PM, Pillow [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I've website which has about 3 uniq visits per day (up to 1500 online). The problem is that CMS written on CakePHP consumes too much of CPUs power. Almost everything is beeing cached (whole views, sometimes db results). In addition the same site was earlier driven by some poor free system which hadn't even had cache, and the CPU usage was about 6 times less. Do you have any tricks and tips to speed up system based on cake? Sounds like it was poorly designed, as 3 hits a day isn't what I would consider high traffic. However, I would suggest the following: (agreed) 1) install a PHP opcode cache like APC 2) make sure you have appropriate database indexes in place 3) spend some time profiling your code using tools like Xdebug and Cachegrind to find out where the slow spots really are. I might also add 4) Move rewrite instructions to apache conf rather than .htaccess 5) Use unbind model (or something similar) more extensively. -- John --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Cake PHP group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: CakePHP 1.2. pre-beta with CakeAMFPHP
On Dec 13, 2007, at 1:37 PM, Gwoo wrote: I have not been working too much on the CakeAMFPHP mainly because I wanted something simple and easy to move around. Plus, with the new AMFEXT, it made sense to write something new. So, we put together the AMF plugin. AMFPHP is not required and working with AMF is a little more Cake. You can find out more about working with Cake/Flex/Flash https://trac.cakefoundation.org/amf/ I highly recommend this solution. It's been lightning fast, and killer easy to use. It makes AMF services easy to create. -- John --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Cake PHP group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Sad Question
On Nov 16, 2007, at 4:00 PM, Christopher E. Franklin, Sr. wrote: I have been working with CakePHP for about a year now and have written a company website in that year that totals in about 150MB of combined PHP code. This whole time, I have been using MySQL, Linux, and Apache to do my coding and testing but, recently, the corporate higher-ups issued a mandate that all web servers are going to be IIS(6/7). Upon hearing this, we installed Windows Server 2003 RC2 w/ IIS6.0 and tried to port over the cake code. Low and behold, it doesn't work. Not just a little bit but, in a bad way that the site stops dead in it's tracks from not being able to load select components and helpers such as , Session, Cookie, Html, Javascript, etc. You're gonna need to provide a lot more details for some help. But... Today is my 3rd day fighting with this and my question is sad now because, my manager wants me to abandon cake alltogether. So, that's going to be 1.1 years worth of code, down the tube unless I can get Windows IIS working with Cake (with or without re-write). ...let me get this straight. 1. Freaking huge web application works on current platform (150MB of code - is that like 5 or 6 million lines? I hope I'm reading that wrong). 2. Suits make unilateral decision to use a new (and imho, sub-par) web server. 3. When problems arise, rather than go back to what works, your boss wants to rewrite the aforementioned freaking huge web application. So, the question: Since I have followed every single tutorial I could find on the web about installing Cake on IIS for the last 3 days (this includes me testing if I could just put Apache on Windows which does not work) I really have no other choice but to switch frameworks. Sounds to me like what you need to consider switching... is your job. Honestly. Execs that make really bad decisions, and a boss that wants to keep them happy by ditching a year plus of code? I don't think the choice of PHP framework is the problem. :) Does anyone know of a pretty close match to CakePHP that WILL work with IIS? Doesn't have to have rewrite. I just need something that I can fairly easily port this code over to in about 2 weeks time. I suppose short term you might want to hire someone who can consult on that–or offer more details–but seriously. Make someone over there see some reason. $0.02 -- John --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Cake PHP group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Open svn branch for 1.2?
On Nov 3, 2007, at 6:20 AM, R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah wrote: On Nov 3, 4:30 pm, AD7six [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 3, 12:14 pm, R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think, the Cake Project Manager could open access to another open svn branch for 1.2. By this way, I think some quick small fixes can be done immediately without needing to open tickets, waiting for the core developers to fix it, etc. Having fully moved to branch version, I have noted even for adding some quotes in /cake/console/libs/templates/views/view.ctp, someone has to open tickets and wait for core developers. I personally think, that by opening access to open branch, it will really be helpful for the core developers (and also for others who use branch version) to quickly merge any good/accepted code from there to their branch or trunk. Tickets and diffs with test cases are a lot safer. You would still need to create a ticket with the proposal to say I updated the sandpit, and for things that are trivial you are usually waiting less than 24 hours anyway. My *humble* personal opinion is that by providing an option to contribute by all means (Wiki model) would speed up any project (this where I'm skeptic about bakery model. If there is a Wiki, it could speed up contribution and improvements exponentially). Demanding more or small fixes from experts could slow down obvious improvements. ...and maintain an acceptable level of quality ...and prevent bloat... Speed isn't the main goal of this project. It's good code. -- John --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Cake PHP group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: New guy needs some help
On Nov 2, 2007, at 12:00 PM, Chris Thompson wrote: Where I work, we are testing out CakePHP to replace our existing codebase. I have two questions. 1. Do all primary keys for tables have to be 'id'? By convention, yes. By configuration, no. See $primaryKey in the Model. snip For $recursive to work, you need to associate your models via hasMany, hasOne, belongsTo, or hasAndBelongsToMany. Check the models chapter of the manual. -- John --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Cake PHP group. To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
