[geeklog-devtalk] Re: geeklog-devtalk digest, Vol 1 #469 - 3 msgs

[Wim Niemans ri]

On 28 Jan 2005 at 12:00, geeklog-devtalk-request at lists.geeklog.net wrote:


> From: Tony Bibbs <tony at tonybibbs.com>

>

> 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?


I would say that this is typical a configuration issue. So I can 
either disable anonymous comments, or may use the spamx plugin.
Or decide later to do otherwise......Spamx is protecting the 
db_content, which is core content (ie maintained by core functions).
Some sites would benefit from a comment_moderation_queue, I guess.

The plugin function 'preSave' could invoke the spamx_call in one go.

The name 'preSave' is technical and ugly. Alternatives are Filter, 
Validate,Beautify or Analyse..........
Other content_items could benefit from these plugin_calls as well. 
They could be in place on database_store, moderation and page_render.

Cheers,
wim niemans