[geeklog-devel] PLG_commentPreSave

[Tony Bibbs]

That's the argument I guess. I don't want to minimize the importance of 
spam filtering but doing it this way essentially implies the use of 
spamx.  The plugins don't do the check for spam themselves the delegate 
that and since it isn't the plugin doing the work I don't quite think 
that would fit in an API.  In otherwords, if the plugin doesn't 
implement the spam check, it's really not an interface.  OO purism 
aside, I think what we have works and that it'd probably not make much 
sense to go in and change things at this point in time.

--Tony

Blaine Lang wrote:

>Well I think it is an API feature we want and thus why I created a wrapper 
>for it.
>The API can and will also call any other plugins that have a spam related 
>function   - 'plugin_checkforSpam_' . $pi_name;
>
>If the spamx plugin is not installed then the wrapper returns the data 
>unchanged and no issues.
>
>We felt this was the best way and left the options open later for other spam 
>filtering plugins to be used.
>
>Blaine
>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: "Tony Bibbs" <tony at tonybibbs.com>
>To: <geeklog-devel at lists.geeklog.net>
>Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2005 2:28 PM
>Subject: Re: [geeklog-devel] PLG_commentPreSave
>
>
>Hrm, k I see.  So the question for me is do we really need the SPAMx
>function in the API at all.  What's wrong with exposing the checkSpam in
>lib-common.php (or some other library)?  Seems like this method (check
>for spam) isn't an API specific thing, it is a feature that we would
>like to expose to other plugins.
>
>Thus, I say it would be up to the plugin author to explicitly check for
>spam from within their own appropriate methods.  Am I missing anything?
>
>--Tony
>
>Blaine Lang wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Uh ok - went back through my emails and it was last Sept/Oct that I worked
>>on this.
>>Here was the email I sent to Dirk that raised this very question when I was
>>adding the spamx API's.
>>
>>Have a read and see if this made sense.
>>
>>-----
>>I'm wondering if there is a reason to preserve the new API that Tony added
>>to support the SPAMX feature in comments. Tony wrote a API that is very
>>generic and can be used for other purposes. It's passed a lot of PARMS 
>>which
>>would be useful by a Plugin if it needed to do something with that coment.
>>
>>function PLG_commentPreSave($uid, $title, $comment, $sid, $pid, $type,
>>$postmode)
>>
>>The SPAMX API now only needs 2 parms ($text and $action)
>>
>>Tom's first idea was to change the PLG_commentPreSave API and I'm wondering
>>if we should keep it. This API is only called from comment.php - since that
>>is the only un-moderated way to add content to stories. But if we really
>>want a generic hook then it should be for new stories as well as comments I
>>think. I don't quite have the application in mind of how this would be used
>>other then for parsing bbcode tags or wiki language. In both those cases, I
>>think only the textual content would need to be passed as well.
>>
>>So I'm not sure what to do with the PLG_commentPreSave API.
>>
>>I'm thinking of adding a new PLG_checkforSpam($content,$action) API and 
>>that
>>would be called from comment.php. The PLG_checkforSpam is a wrapper to call
>>the plugin_checkforSpam_spamx()
>>
>>The other idea is to add the call to plugin_checkforSpam_spamx in the
>>PLG_commentPreSave() so that it will be called plus what ever plugin 
>>related
>>functions that may be available.
>>
>>Sorry to make this sound more complex - it's the current API and what to do
>>with it that make me stop and ask.
>>
>>Blaine
>>------
>>
>>----- Original Message ----- 
>>From: "Tony Bibbs" <tony at tonybibbs.com>
>>To: <geeklog-devel at lists.geeklog.net>
>>Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2005 1:22 PM
>>Subject: Re: [geeklog-devel] PLG_commentPreSave
>>
>>
>>Right, Vinny's question is why couldn't the spamx plugin just have used
>>PLG_commentPreSave then?
>>
>>--Tony
>>
>>Vincent Furia wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>>>On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 12:00:27 -0500, Blaine Lang <geeklog at langfamily.ca>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>Dirk, Tom and I talked about this when implementing the new SPAMX API's
>>>>and
>>>>decided that it was best to still have a Non-Spamx API to allow other
>>>>plugins to add any other comment related filtering or handling that may 
>>>>be
>>>>required.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>I'm still confused as to why different APIs are needed since they
>>>appear to do the same thing.  They are even called one after the
>>>other.
>>>
>>>I think one plugin call would be enough, something like:
>>>
>>>PLG_commentPreSave(title, comment, ...) and have it return HTML to
>>>output if there is an error (this can include a COM_refresh) otherwise
>>>just return 0.  If I can work it into the plugin API to pass the
>>>comment and title by reference, plugins could modify those and still
>>>return a "success" status.
>>>
>>>Thoughts?
>>>
>>>-Vinny
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>geeklog-devel mailing list
>>>geeklog-devel at lists.geeklog.net
>>>http://lists.geeklog.net/listinfo/geeklog-devel
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>geeklog-devel mailing list
>>geeklog-devel at lists.geeklog.net
>>http://lists.geeklog.net/listinfo/geeklog-devel
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>geeklog-devel mailing list
>>geeklog-devel at lists.geeklog.net
>>http://lists.geeklog.net/listinfo/geeklog-devel
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>geeklog-devel mailing list
>geeklog-devel at lists.geeklog.net
>http://lists.geeklog.net/listinfo/geeklog-devel 
>
>_______________________________________________
>geeklog-devel mailing list
>geeklog-devel at lists.geeklog.net
>http://lists.geeklog.net/listinfo/geeklog-devel
>  
>