[geeklog-devtalk] geeklog-devel digest, Vol 1 #493 - 6 msgs

[geeklog-devel-request at lists.geeklog.net]

Send geeklog-devel mailing list submissions to
	geeklog-devel at lists.geeklog.net

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.geeklog.net/listinfo/geeklog-devel
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	geeklog-devel-request at lists.geeklog.net

You can reach the person managing the list at
	geeklog-devel-admin at lists.geeklog.net

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of geeklog-devel digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: PLG_commentPreSave (Tony Bibbs)
   2. Re: PLG_commentPreSave (Blaine Lang)
   3. Re: PLG_commentPreSave (Tony Bibbs)
   4. Re: PLG_commentPreSave (Tony Bibbs)
   5. Re: PLG_commentPreSave (Blaine Lang)
   6. Re: PLG_commentPreSave (Tony Bibbs)

--__--__--

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 12:22:48 -0600
From: Tony Bibbs <tony at tonybibbs.com>
To: geeklog-devel at lists.geeklog.net
Subject: Re: [geeklog-devel] PLG_commentPreSave
Reply-To: geeklog-devel at lists.geeklog.net

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

>  

>



--__--__--

Message: 2
From: "Blaine Lang" <geeklog at langfamily.ca>
To: <geeklog-devel at lists.geeklog.net>
Subject: Re: [geeklog-devel] PLG_commentPreSave
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 14:07:06 -0500
Reply-To: geeklog-devel at lists.geeklog.net

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


--__--__--

Message: 3
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 13:28:17 -0600
From: Tony Bibbs <tony at tonybibbs.com>
To: geeklog-devel at lists.geeklog.net
Subject: Re: [geeklog-devel] PLG_commentPreSave
Reply-To: geeklog-devel at lists.geeklog.net

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

>  

>



--__--__--

Message: 4
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 13:31:56 -0600
From: Tony Bibbs <tony at tonybibbs.com>
To: geeklog-devel at lists.geeklog.net
Subject: Re: [geeklog-devel] PLG_commentPreSave
Reply-To: geeklog-devel at lists.geeklog.net

This also brings up the issue of plugin dependencies.  We have this in 
mind for GL2 on how to have some plugins either require or optionally 
use features from other plugins.  That's essentially what we want.  
After I thought about the message below I sent I realized we can't 
assume the spamx plugin is installed (even if it is a plugin).  Seems 
like an elegant fix might not be possible with the current paradigm.

--Tony

Tony Bibbs wrote:


> 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




--__--__--

Message: 5
From: "Blaine Lang" <geeklog at langfamily.ca>
To: <geeklog-devel at lists.geeklog.net>
Subject: Re: [geeklog-devel] PLG_commentPreSave
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 14:49:10 -0500
Reply-To: geeklog-devel at lists.geeklog.net

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 


--__--__--

Message: 6
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 14:05:47 -0600
From: Tony Bibbs <tony at tonybibbs.com>
To: geeklog-devel at lists.geeklog.net
Subject: Re: [geeklog-devel] PLG_commentPreSave
Reply-To: geeklog-devel at lists.geeklog.net

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

>  

>




--__--__--

_______________________________________________
geeklog-devel mailing list
geeklog-devel at lists.geeklog.net
http://lists.geeklog.net/listinfo/geeklog-devel


End of geeklog-devel Digest