Anil,

I committed my code to trunk, so please take a look at the latest code
in the WeblogCalendarModel, I had to add two queries and a new
argument to the getWeblogEntries() method to allow both descending and
ascending sort order.

- Dave


On 12/13/06, Anil Gangolli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

OK.

Allen had already noted that weblog.dateCreated tends to be inaccurate.

I had considered something along the lines of your approach in (2) but
discarded that due to worries about performance impact.  I'm curious how you
approached this.

I was considering an alternative where we would maintain the earliest ever
publish date (the earliest publish date ever written --even it if is moved
forward or deleted later) but sticking with the existing "strict prev:
approach.

I'm fine with backing out for 3.1 so we have more time to determine the
right approach for 3.2.

--a.




----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 1:48 PM
Subject: Re: svn commit: r482704 -
/incubator/roller/branches/roller_3.1/src/org/apache/roller/ui/core/tags/calendar/CalendarTag.java


> Actually, my fix requires more extensive changes than I'd like to add
> to 3.1 so what I'm planning to do is to back out the r482704 change
> for 3.1 and commit my code so we can have a fix for 3.2. I'll start by
> committing my code to trunk.
>
> - Dave
>
>
>
> On 12/12/06, Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Thanks for this important fix Anil, but there are two small problems:
>>
>> 1) I've found that weblog.dateCreated is not very reliable. Since it
>> is a timestamp, it gets updated anytime somebody makes a change to the
>> WEBSITE table via SQL UPDATE (unless they are  careful to use
>> updatetime=updatetime). I know our dateCreated information is
>> unreliable because of that. We rolled out the "3.2" codebase recently
>> and got some bug reports because of this.
>>
>> 2) Users don't want to click prev, prev, prev to go hunting back in
>> time for the previous month of entries. We don't just want to link to
>> the chronologically previous and previous months, we want to link to
>> the next and previous non-empty months. That's better for usability
>> and spidering reduction too.
>>
>> I have a fix ready to commit that addresses both of these issues.
>>
>> - Dave
>>
>>
>>
>> On 12/5/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Author: gangolli
>> > Date: Tue Dec  5 08:37:49 2006
>> > New Revision: 482704
>> >
>> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=482704
>> > Log:
>> > Fix for ROL-1312 integrated from the mainline.
>> >
>> > Modified:
>> >
>> > 
incubator/roller/branches/roller_3.1/src/org/apache/roller/ui/core/tags/calendar/CalendarTag.java
>> >
>> > Modified:
>> > 
incubator/roller/branches/roller_3.1/src/org/apache/roller/ui/core/tags/calendar/CalendarTag.java
>> > URL:
>> > 
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/roller/branches/roller_3.1/src/org/apache/roller/ui/core/tags/calendar/CalendarTag.java?view=diff&rev=482704&r1=482703&r2=482704
>> > 
==============================================================================
>> > ---
>> > 
incubator/roller/branches/roller_3.1/src/org/apache/roller/ui/core/tags/calendar/CalendarTag.java
>> > (original)
>> > +++
>> > 
incubator/roller/branches/roller_3.1/src/org/apache/roller/ui/core/tags/calendar/CalendarTag.java
>> > Tue Dec  5 08:37:49 2006
>> > @@ -163,8 +163,9 @@
>> >              day = DateUtil.getNoonOfDay(day, cal);
>> >              cal.set( Calendar.DAY_OF_MONTH,
>> > cal.getMinimum(Calendar.DAY_OF_MONTH) );
>> >
>> > -            // go back to sunday before that: the first sunday in the
>> > calendar
>> > -            while ( cal.get( Calendar.DAY_OF_WEEK ) !=
>> > Calendar.SUNDAY ) {
>> > +            // Go back to first day of week before that (Sunday in US,
>> > Monday in France, e.g.)
>> > +            // in the calendar
>> > +            while ( cal.get( Calendar.DAY_OF_WEEK ) !=
>> > cal.getFirstDayOfWeek() ) {
>> >                  cal.add( Calendar.DATE, -1 );
>> >              }
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>


Reply via email to