[geeklog-devel] GSoC 2010 is on
tuxcanfly at gmail.com
Fri Apr 2 04:35:25 EDT 2010
I am a would-be GSoC student participant and I am interested in taking up
the Socnet project. I will go through your patch, test it during the weekend
and try to figure out how it fits in with socnet. I have glanced through the
documentation in the feature request and I would like to add a few points on
how Socnet will handle this in my view. From the feature request page:
Code displaying this (such as SOC_getGroupDropdown) would need to handle how
> to display the group names intelligently.
Will the group names in the drop down be unique?. If yes, we will need to
get the user name from the uid and attach it to the group name (since group
names are not unique). For example the drop down would contain the following
- Joe Mucchiello's Friends
- Jakh Daven's Co-Workers
- Jakh Daven's Friends
Is this correct? We will need to handle user name+group name clashes
As you said, even if it does not make it into 1.7.0, it will be very useful
to the gsoc devs, Thanks for the patch.
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Joe Mucchiello <joe at throwingdice.com>wrote:
> At 01:39 AM 4/2/2010, Vincent Furia wrote:
>> Only had a few minutes tonight to take a look. Have a couple comments
>> 1. 1.7.0 introduces Postgresql support, we'll need SQL updates for it as
> Yeah, I know. I can read the docs and make something up. But someone more
> familiar with pgsql should write that. If I had been targeting 1.7.0
> directly, I'd have created the files at a minimum. I just figured 1.7.0 is a
> moving target and a 3-way merge with mercurial should be easier than it use
> to be with CVS. Someone just needs to checkout from the 1.6.1 commit. Merge
> my changes and then try to push the changes back up. (Although, I admit, for
> me this is just my understanding of the theory behind a DVCS.)
> 2. Since your using the column grp_owner in where clauses everytime you
>> select from the group table, I think we need an index on it. I think the
>> UNIQUE INDEX in MySQL also acts as sorting index, but I don't think (but I'm
>> not sure) that a MSSQL CONSTRAINT acts as an index.
> Again, I just mirrored what I saw in the mssql files. If what you say is
> true there are potentially no indexes (other than primary key indexes) on
> the mssql install as I see no place where a CREATE INDEX statement is
> executed. Unfortunately I don't have anywhere to run mssql to test it out.
> Ultimately, I wasn't worried about indexes on the database because they can
> always be tweaked ad hoc in a worst case scenario. Besides, Geeklog is lousy
> about indexes. If you've ever upgraded a database continuously from an early
> version you might end up with duplicate indexes on various tables.
> I'll have more time to look at it over the weekend.
> P.S. You may be a bit late for 1.7.0. Dirk indicated a feature freeze
>> earlier this week and is aiming for a Beta 1.7.0 over the weekend.
> I always miss the feature freeze emails. Looking back he didn't actually
> call it a feature freeze. Just a beta this weekend. I sent him an email
> about this yesterday that he didn't answer. So I can still hope this time I
> made it under the wire. Technically I suppose this only needs to be part of
> 1.7.1hg so that GSoC devs can use it.
> Joe Mucchiello
> Throwing Dice Games
> No virus found in this outgoing message
> Checked by PC Tools AntiVirus (184.108.40.206 - 10.004.176).
> geeklog-devel mailing list
> geeklog-devel at lists.geeklog.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the geeklog-devel