[lilycore-dev] Re: Depermitted discussions should not be "destroyed". (PR#532)

[Jack T. <jm...@tw...>]

>>>>> "Christian" =3D=3D Christian Ratliff <lil...@ce...> writes:

Christian> Jack, The behaviour you describe is by design. When you are
Christian> depermitted from a discussion, it ceases to exist for
Christian> you. For that reason a destroy notification is the most
Christian> accurate representation of what occured.=20

This is not completely true.  If the discussion were truly destroyed,
then a discussion of the same name could be created immediately
thereafter.  If a user is de-permitted, they are told the discussion
has been destroyed, which is a little white lie -- it still exists,
and this existence can be validated by attempting to re-create it.
It's my personal opinion that lily's attempt to be polite fails in
this instance.

Christian> If you are permitted to a private discussion, or your ban
Christian> is lifted from a public discussion, then a permit event is
Christian> also the best description of what took place since the
Christian> discussion is not, in fact, newly created.

From=20the perspective of the re-permitted user, it is indeed created.
It did not exist before, and it now exists, so that implies a create
event, by the logic used in the previous instance.  Since the
discussion was in existence the entire time, a permit event makes more
sense here, I agree.  But you can't have it both ways and be
consistent.

Christian> While one could easily argue at length that a depermit
Christian> should make clear to a user they have been kicked out, such
Christian> is not the design of lily.=20

In my humble opinion, while this may have been appropriate for the
instance of lily at RPI at the time lily was designed, I do not think
it is necessarily appropriate for all other instances of lily.  It is
also not clearly documented and confuses even regular users when they
attempt to write clients.  If this is to continue being a feature of
lily, perhaps emphasizing it in the appropriate parts of the
documentation may help.

Christian> The point remains, nonetheless entirely valid, and for a
Christian> different CMC the solution proposed here may be quite
Christian> applicable. A good idea remains a good idea even if it does
Christian> not fit within the current design criteria.

I'd love to see a complete list of those criteria.

Christian> christian

Jack.
(I bet you wouldn't mind a complete list of those criteria yourself.)
=2D-=20
Jack Twilley
jmt at twilley dot org
http colon slash slash www dot twilley dot org slash tilde jmt slash