Re: [Chategory-devl] Versioning: Chategory 2.0, 3.0

[Jonathan F. <jo...@sl...>]

Sorry for no response. Had a hurricane nearby and was out for about a 
week. Still trying to get back into the swing of things, so I might not 
be of much help in the coming couple of weeks. Hope to get back on track 
very soon, though.

I haven't touched templating as of yet, and as far as I know no one else 
has either.

By the way, I just wanted to update everyone on a new team member, Mike 
Cherim. He's not superlative in his programming skills, but he is a 
great creative source and will no doubt help keep the project running 
(trust me, he's pretty good at that). Also I think his assistance will 
be invaluable in regards to the user interface design. I plan to get him 
into helping us out as soon as possible, so look out for messages from 
him on the mailing list and elsewhere in the coming weeks.

Bob F wrote:
> Just to give you all an update.
> 
> I've been a bit busy as of late (last week or two). I have, however, 
> redesigned how Chategory stores messages. Have a bit of a snag with 
> cycling through them, but given a bit of time I can iron that out. When 
> I finish it, I'll upload a zip of it, because it does have some major 
> changes from what we have now. Basically, what I worked up uses a 
> directory for the data, and Chategory stores the files in with numeric 
> names that increase. Eg: 0.xml, 1.xml, 2.xml, ect. I've modified the 
> next and back links (and of course the API has a big change) so you can 
> cycle through all of these seamlessly. I've got archiving/cleanout 
> checks for when you post a new message, figured that was the best way. 
> The only snag, like I said, is I'm having some logic problems with 
> cycling backwards through messages, but that's probably because I'm not 
> thinking straight as of late. Soon to be ironed out.
> 
> Also, is anyone working on templating? I've got some ideas floating 
> around for doing that all, but I don't want to launch into some major 
> work on it if somebody else is already working on it.
> 
> 
> On 9/10/05, *Jonathan Fenocchi* <jo...@sl... 
> <mailto:jo...@sl...>> wrote:
> 
>     Good thinking, Bob. I think that's the best choice. Perhaps group
>     like-options, though? That is,
> 
>       Archive [Never, Monthly, Weekly, Daily]
>       Cleanout [Never, Monthly, Weekly, Daily]
> 
>     What do you think? Overkill? I know it's not best practice to give too
>     many options (according to our good usability friends, the 37 Signals),
>     but I think that this is an important flexibility feature, so it's okay
>     to make an exception.
> 
> -- 
> - Da Bob