Re: CakePHP 1.3.7 released
Hi Sergei, > I reported the bug: > > http://cakephp.lighthouseapp.com/projects/42648-cakephp/tickets/1502-model-delete-generates-wrong-join-if-it-has-belongsto-and-hasandbelongstomany-to-the-same-model MArk commented on it and closed it. I think he's right, it does seem very odd to have 2 User associations, I don't see how that could work. What's wrong with 'Subscription' as the alias? Cheers, J -- jon bennett - www.jben.net - blog.jben.net -- Our newest site for the community: CakePHP Video Tutorials http://tv.cakephp.org Check out the new CakePHP Questions site http://ask.cakephp.org and help others with their CakePHP related questions. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cake-php+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php
Re: CakePHP 1.3.7 released
Mark, I reported the bug: http://cakephp.lighthouseapp.com/projects/42648-cakephp/tickets/1502-model-delete-generates-wrong-join-if-it-has-belongsto-and-hasandbelongstomany-to-the-same-model S. On Feb 1, 11:12 am, mark_story wrote: > I've not heard of this issue. Has anyone bothered to open a ticket > for it? Issues without tickets never get fixed :) > > -Mark -- Our newest site for the community: CakePHP Video Tutorials http://tv.cakephp.org Check out the new CakePHP Questions site http://ask.cakephp.org and help others with their CakePHP related questions. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cake-php+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php
Re: CakePHP 1.3.7 released
I did that and it worked to some effect. I am currently working on a way to get around the problem but I hope that in time this feature will be added to Containable behaviour. Regards On Feb 2, 10:15 am, Jeremy Burns | Class Outfit wrote: > Don't forget you can use 'joins' that can give you the results you want. It's > just a bit more fiddly. > > Jeremy Burns > Class Outfit > > jeremybu...@classoutfit.comhttp://www.classoutfit.com > > On 2 Feb 2011, at 07:13, Name256 wrote: > > > > > > > > > This would be nice as well. I'm just kind of in a dilemma on my > > current project where I am having problems getting desired results > > while using containable behaviour. I hope that this change will be > > effected on future versoins of CakePHP or it is atleast being > > considered because there are those times that conditions on the > > hasMany or HABTM side will affect the results of an entire query. > > > Kind regards. > > Abel > > > On Feb 2, 9:55 am, Jeremy Burns | Class Outfit > > wrote: > >> I think an option to turn this on or off inside the 'contain' element > >> would be fantastic. > > >> Jeremy Burns > >> Class Outfit > > >> jeremybu...@classoutfit.comhttp://www.classoutfit.com > > >> On 2 Feb 2011, at 06:52, Name256 wrote: > > >>> Fantastic news. I was wondering whether there were going to be any > >>> changes made to the containable behaviour in the results returned from > >>> queries where filters applied to child models can be strictly applied > >>> to the parent model as well to endure that data is filtered > >>> accordingly (I am aware that containable is designed to filter data i > >>> related models only and not the parent model of the query). > > >>> Kind regards. > > >>> Abel > > >>> -- > >>> Our newest site for the community: CakePHP Video > >>> Tutorialshttp://tv.cakephp.org > >>> Check out the new CakePHP Questions sitehttp://ask.cakephp.organdhelp > >>> others with their CakePHP related questions. > > >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > >>> cake-php+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group > >>> athttp://groups.google.com/group/cake-php > > > -- > > Our newest site for the community: CakePHP Video > > Tutorialshttp://tv.cakephp.org > > Check out the new CakePHP Questions sitehttp://ask.cakephp.organd help > > others with their CakePHP related questions. > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > cake-php+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group > > athttp://groups.google.com/group/cake-php -- Our newest site for the community: CakePHP Video Tutorials http://tv.cakephp.org Check out the new CakePHP Questions site http://ask.cakephp.org and help others with their CakePHP related questions. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cake-php+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php
Re: CakePHP 1.3.7 released
Don't forget you can use 'joins' that can give you the results you want. It's just a bit more fiddly. Jeremy Burns Class Outfit jeremybu...@classoutfit.com http://www.classoutfit.com On 2 Feb 2011, at 07:13, Name256 wrote: > This would be nice as well. I'm just kind of in a dilemma on my > current project where I am having problems getting desired results > while using containable behaviour. I hope that this change will be > effected on future versoins of CakePHP or it is atleast being > considered because there are those times that conditions on the > hasMany or HABTM side will affect the results of an entire query. > > Kind regards. > Abel > > On Feb 2, 9:55 am, Jeremy Burns | Class Outfit > wrote: >> I think an option to turn this on or off inside the 'contain' element would >> be fantastic. >> >> Jeremy Burns >> Class Outfit >> >> jeremybu...@classoutfit.comhttp://www.classoutfit.com >> >> On 2 Feb 2011, at 06:52, Name256 wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> Fantastic news. I was wondering whether there were going to be any >>> changes made to the containable behaviour in the results returned from >>> queries where filters applied to child models can be strictly applied >>> to the parent model as well to endure that data is filtered >>> accordingly (I am aware that containable is designed to filter data i >>> related models only and not the parent model of the query). >> >>> Kind regards. >> >>> Abel >> >>> -- >>> Our newest site for the community: CakePHP Video >>> Tutorialshttp://tv.cakephp.org >>> Check out the new CakePHP Questions sitehttp://ask.cakephp.organd help >>> others with their CakePHP related questions. >> >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> cake-php+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group >>> athttp://groups.google.com/group/cake-php > > -- > Our newest site for the community: CakePHP Video Tutorials > http://tv.cakephp.org > Check out the new CakePHP Questions site http://ask.cakephp.org and help > others with their CakePHP related questions. > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > cake-php+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php -- Our newest site for the community: CakePHP Video Tutorials http://tv.cakephp.org Check out the new CakePHP Questions site http://ask.cakephp.org and help others with their CakePHP related questions. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cake-php+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php
Re: CakePHP 1.3.7 released
This would be nice as well. I'm just kind of in a dilemma on my current project where I am having problems getting desired results while using containable behaviour. I hope that this change will be effected on future versoins of CakePHP or it is atleast being considered because there are those times that conditions on the hasMany or HABTM side will affect the results of an entire query. Kind regards. Abel On Feb 2, 9:55 am, Jeremy Burns | Class Outfit wrote: > I think an option to turn this on or off inside the 'contain' element would > be fantastic. > > Jeremy Burns > Class Outfit > > jeremybu...@classoutfit.comhttp://www.classoutfit.com > > On 2 Feb 2011, at 06:52, Name256 wrote: > > > > > > > > > Fantastic news. I was wondering whether there were going to be any > > changes made to the containable behaviour in the results returned from > > queries where filters applied to child models can be strictly applied > > to the parent model as well to endure that data is filtered > > accordingly (I am aware that containable is designed to filter data i > > related models only and not the parent model of the query). > > > Kind regards. > > > Abel > > > -- > > Our newest site for the community: CakePHP Video > > Tutorialshttp://tv.cakephp.org > > Check out the new CakePHP Questions sitehttp://ask.cakephp.organd help > > others with their CakePHP related questions. > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > cake-php+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group > > athttp://groups.google.com/group/cake-php -- Our newest site for the community: CakePHP Video Tutorials http://tv.cakephp.org Check out the new CakePHP Questions site http://ask.cakephp.org and help others with their CakePHP related questions. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cake-php+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php
Re: CakePHP 1.3.7 released
I think an option to turn this on or off inside the 'contain' element would be fantastic. Jeremy Burns Class Outfit jeremybu...@classoutfit.com http://www.classoutfit.com On 2 Feb 2011, at 06:52, Name256 wrote: > Fantastic news. I was wondering whether there were going to be any > changes made to the containable behaviour in the results returned from > queries where filters applied to child models can be strictly applied > to the parent model as well to endure that data is filtered > accordingly (I am aware that containable is designed to filter data i > related models only and not the parent model of the query). > > Kind regards. > > Abel > > -- > Our newest site for the community: CakePHP Video Tutorials > http://tv.cakephp.org > Check out the new CakePHP Questions site http://ask.cakephp.org and help > others with their CakePHP related questions. > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > cake-php+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php -- Our newest site for the community: CakePHP Video Tutorials http://tv.cakephp.org Check out the new CakePHP Questions site http://ask.cakephp.org and help others with their CakePHP related questions. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cake-php+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php
Re: CakePHP 1.3.7 released
Fantastic news. I was wondering whether there were going to be any changes made to the containable behaviour in the results returned from queries where filters applied to child models can be strictly applied to the parent model as well to endure that data is filtered accordingly (I am aware that containable is designed to filter data i related models only and not the parent model of the query). Kind regards. Abel -- Our newest site for the community: CakePHP Video Tutorials http://tv.cakephp.org Check out the new CakePHP Questions site http://ask.cakephp.org and help others with their CakePHP related questions. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cake-php+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php
Re: CakePHP 1.3.7 released
I've not heard of this issue. Has anyone bothered to open a ticket for it? Issues without tickets never get fixed :) -Mark On Jan 28, 7:33 am, Sergei wrote: > Thanks, looks good. > > However, model->delete() is still broken, generates wrong join if it > hasmany. > > S. > > On Jan 20, 9:18 am, mark_story wrote: > > > > > > > > > The CakePHP core team is proud to announce the immediate availability > > of CakePHP release 1.3.7. Since the release of CakePHP 1.3.6 a month > > and half ago, there have been over 55 commits[1] and 40 tickets > > resolved. There have been a few changes that may affect your > > application: -- Our newest site for the community: CakePHP Video Tutorials http://tv.cakephp.org Check out the new CakePHP Questions site http://ask.cakephp.org and help others with their CakePHP related questions. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cake-php+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php
Re: CakePHP 1.3.7 released
Thanks, looks good. However, model->delete() is still broken, generates wrong join if it hasmany. S. On Jan 20, 9:18 am, mark_story wrote: > The CakePHP core team is proud to announce the immediate availability > of CakePHP release 1.3.7. Since the release of CakePHP 1.3.6 a month > and half ago, there have been over 55 commits[1] and 40 tickets > resolved. There have been a few changes that may affect your > application: -- Our newest site for the community: CakePHP Video Tutorials http://tv.cakephp.org Check out the new CakePHP Questions site http://ask.cakephp.org and help others with their CakePHP related questions. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cake-php+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php
Re: CakePHP 1.3.7 released - Comments 2 cents
Yes I agree with these last 3 answers. I was imagining comments like in php.net web that show a lot of different ways to use the code in action so you don't need to go around searching for all those bits of code here and there on different blogs... In this case if comments are needed much better to be more visible and even rated. But it's true this is not a language is a framework and it might be different the comments posted here. It's also true that being able to change directly the text it allows flexibility and improvements without the need of comments. So maybe what I wish is just to not to have to open 3 or 4 tabs every time I search to implement something new in my app. I think the documentation lacks examples. Maybe it would be great to have links within the documentation of many examples that exist and the API of the classes referenced. And if they were displayed there with javascript (hide/show) even better. Of course all this if it doesn't mean that developers have to take their time out of their work on the core code. But I thought they wanted to hear about our experiences on the book and what we think it's needed or how we would find it more useful. so just this, my opinion if it helps :) On Jan 24, 11:35 pm, "Dave Maharaj" wrote: > I agree comments CAN BE great! > > BUT > > Should be left to the professionals. Mr Cake Baker (sorry if someone has > that name...not intentional) who has 2 days use with Cake thinking he is an > expert posting bad comments everywhere adding misguided information helps > no-one. With the framework every situation is different, what works for 1 > may infact not work for someone else. Who is to say what a basic example of > usage is (other than the developers)? I think the examples in the cookbook > provide enough details to get a person started. More complex / specific > question posted here seem to be working quite fine as almost every question > asked here gets a answer if not a dozen. > > There are a dozen if not more cake guys out there who have sites / personal > blogs with loads of tips / guides / code that I have bookmarked in my favs > and I use them as great resources. Most allow questions and comments for > each section where they answer their own questions. Sure I have to jump > around and look for stuff but you know what. If it take me a few mins or an > hour to find correct quality info then it beats a day working with faulty > comments, bad examples. There is no perfect solution but part of the > responsibility is on us, the user to take the time to find / make / show > these things on our own and let the developers develop. > > Maybe a list of CakePros which is a list of Cake users with proven > experience / knowledge with links to their sites?(Miles J, John Anderson, > ClassOutfit, Dr.Lobato, Euromark, Cricket to name a few who 99% of the time > in my opinion solve almost any issue I have ever seen!) > > As for developers reviewing commentsI would rather the developers focus > on the code, not the comments. I would rather my framework be as efficient > as possible and knowing they are hard at work doing that is of more > importance then having to break up their day to monitor comments. > > But that's just me :) > > Bake away! > > -Original Message- > From: LunarDraco [mailto:mdc...@gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 5:26 PM > To: CakePHP > Subject: Re: CakePHP 1.3.7 released > > I do NOT see comments on the cakephp documentation to be valuable. > > I think comments like php.net are great when your talking about how to > use a function. Most of the content of the cakephp book is how to use > the framework a little bit more extensive than a sequence of function > calls. This is where comments really don't help, the comments are > either not complete enough to really help anyone or they are > misleading and end up confusing more than they help. > > Examples of use with decent explanations are extremely valuable, and > should be made part of the documentation, and I think the authors of > the book have been doing a great job at this in recent years. These > examples tend to take more effort to put together. > > Submitted to git where the concepts can also be reviewed by the > architects of the framework and verified against best practice. > Best practice is another issue when you step past the function to the > framework. A lot of the comments go against best practice because it > takes to much effort to explain how to do it correctly in a comment. > This is why we see way too much code in the controller that should be > in the model. > > I'm pretty sure for the most part we can all read an API for a > function. There are plenty of comments on usage of specific
RE: CakePHP 1.3.7 released - Comments 2 cents
I agree comments CAN BE great! BUT Should be left to the professionals. Mr Cake Baker (sorry if someone has that name...not intentional) who has 2 days use with Cake thinking he is an expert posting bad comments everywhere adding misguided information helps no-one. With the framework every situation is different, what works for 1 may infact not work for someone else. Who is to say what a basic example of usage is (other than the developers)? I think the examples in the cookbook provide enough details to get a person started. More complex / specific question posted here seem to be working quite fine as almost every question asked here gets a answer if not a dozen. There are a dozen if not more cake guys out there who have sites / personal blogs with loads of tips / guides / code that I have bookmarked in my favs and I use them as great resources. Most allow questions and comments for each section where they answer their own questions. Sure I have to jump around and look for stuff but you know what. If it take me a few mins or an hour to find correct quality info then it beats a day working with faulty comments, bad examples. There is no perfect solution but part of the responsibility is on us, the user to take the time to find / make / show these things on our own and let the developers develop. Maybe a list of CakePros which is a list of Cake users with proven experience / knowledge with links to their sites?(Miles J, John Anderson, ClassOutfit, Dr.Lobato, Euromark, Cricket to name a few who 99% of the time in my opinion solve almost any issue I have ever seen!) As for developers reviewing commentsI would rather the developers focus on the code, not the comments. I would rather my framework be as efficient as possible and knowing they are hard at work doing that is of more importance then having to break up their day to monitor comments. But that's just me :) Bake away! -Original Message- From: LunarDraco [mailto:mdc...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 5:26 PM To: CakePHP Subject: Re: CakePHP 1.3.7 released I do NOT see comments on the cakephp documentation to be valuable. I think comments like php.net are great when your talking about how to use a function. Most of the content of the cakephp book is how to use the framework a little bit more extensive than a sequence of function calls. This is where comments really don't help, the comments are either not complete enough to really help anyone or they are misleading and end up confusing more than they help. Examples of use with decent explanations are extremely valuable, and should be made part of the documentation, and I think the authors of the book have been doing a great job at this in recent years. These examples tend to take more effort to put together. Submitted to git where the concepts can also be reviewed by the architects of the framework and verified against best practice. Best practice is another issue when you step past the function to the framework. A lot of the comments go against best practice because it takes to much effort to explain how to do it correctly in a comment. This is why we see way too much code in the controller that should be in the model. I'm pretty sure for the most part we can all read an API for a function. There are plenty of comments on usage of specific functions and parameters in the google groups. A good number with links back to the documentation. If you really want to see how to use a function take a peek at the test case. The documentation needs more real examples that focus on solving a specific problem, or best practice on using a specific part of the framework. This is where we can really add to the value of the documentation. Another problem with comments is when you go to convert or output your documentation in different formats like PDF etc. You generally don't get the comments which might show one or two good examples, or you get all the comments regardless of how relevant they might be. I vote for using a tool like sphinx for documentation. Using git and community contributed commits to enhance the documentation. And I vote for keeping comments and questions in the groups, IRC channels and personal Blog space. I really appreciate all the efforts the Core team has put into this project. They have made the work I do more enjoyable, and less tedious. Keep up the great work! -- Our newest site for the community: CakePHP Video Tutorials http://tv.cakephp.org Check out the new CakePHP Questions site http://ask.cakephp.org and help others with their CakePHP related questions. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cake-php+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php -- Our newest site for the community: CakePHP Video Tutorials http://tv.cakephp.org Check out the new CakePHP Questions site http://ask.cakephp.org and help others with their CakePHP related questio
Re: CakePHP 1.3.7 released
I do NOT see comments on the cakephp documentation to be valuable. I think comments like php.net are great when your talking about how to use a function. Most of the content of the cakephp book is how to use the framework a little bit more extensive than a sequence of function calls. This is where comments really don't help, the comments are either not complete enough to really help anyone or they are misleading and end up confusing more than they help. Examples of use with decent explanations are extremely valuable, and should be made part of the documentation, and I think the authors of the book have been doing a great job at this in recent years. These examples tend to take more effort to put together. Submitted to git where the concepts can also be reviewed by the architects of the framework and verified against best practice. Best practice is another issue when you step past the function to the framework. A lot of the comments go against best practice because it takes to much effort to explain how to do it correctly in a comment. This is why we see way too much code in the controller that should be in the model. I'm pretty sure for the most part we can all read an API for a function. There are plenty of comments on usage of specific functions and parameters in the google groups. A good number with links back to the documentation. If you really want to see how to use a function take a peek at the test case. The documentation needs more real examples that focus on solving a specific problem, or best practice on using a specific part of the framework. This is where we can really add to the value of the documentation. Another problem with comments is when you go to convert or output your documentation in different formats like PDF etc. You generally don't get the comments which might show one or two good examples, or you get all the comments regardless of how relevant they might be. I vote for using a tool like sphinx for documentation. Using git and community contributed commits to enhance the documentation. And I vote for keeping comments and questions in the groups, IRC channels and personal Blog space. I really appreciate all the efforts the Core team has put into this project. They have made the work I do more enjoyable, and less tedious. Keep up the great work! -- Our newest site for the community: CakePHP Video Tutorials http://tv.cakephp.org Check out the new CakePHP Questions site http://ask.cakephp.org and help others with their CakePHP related questions. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cake-php+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php
Re: CakePHP 1.3.7 released
On Jan 24, 9:50 am, netusco wrote: > regarding the comments I feel they should be more visible, definetly, > but... why? Has anyone pro-comments SEEN what's in the existing comments? Comments were added to the book because it was easy to do so. However they were /not/ made super visible because the point of the book is that the whole community could edit the docs - what's the point in having helpful comments when the person commenting could just as easily (and thankfully many, many people have) simply add their 'comment' to the docs themselves? There are over a thousand comments in the book, I would estimate less than 10 give any value (and I think that's way-generous). A near 1:1 signal to noise ratio just isn't worth it; please feel free to link to any comments you feel contradict my opinion. > > I would do 2 thinks to prevent misleading info: > > 1- post them as a thread to this group with the text of the page above > so it allows quick answer from this group why? why wouldn't the author of the comment just post their question - if that's what it is - in the group directly? > > and... > > 2- have a rating system like thumbs up or down to classify their order > of display and to prevent people from taking them seriously. Since the book's code is opensource - feel free to implement whatever you feel is missing. > > When I say this group I also think it could be a similar new group > created just for the purpose of helping in this an other development > issues of the project. Which would mean another place to look - or quite simply: not. Ttherefore instead of just having irrelevant comments, there's then a google group full of irrelevance too. All IMHO, AD -- Our newest site for the community: CakePHP Video Tutorials http://tv.cakephp.org Check out the new CakePHP Questions site http://ask.cakephp.org and help others with their CakePHP related questions. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cake-php+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php
Re: CakePHP 1.3.7 released
regarding the comments I feel they should be more visible, definetly, but... I would do 2 thinks to prevent misleading info: 1- post them as a thread to this group with the text of the page above so it allows quick answer from this group and... 2- have a rating system like thumbs up or down to classify their order of display and to prevent people from taking them seriously. Then if a comment receives an X number of thumbs down it gets off display and it sends a message to the owner explaining so. Would also be great to rate them when posted to this group using links token system so they would be directly having some rates. When I say this group I also think it could be a similar new group created just for the purpose of helping in this an other development issues of the project. On Jan 22, 7:52 pm, Devario Johnson wrote: > looking forward to it -- Our newest site for the community: CakePHP Video Tutorials http://tv.cakephp.org Check out the new CakePHP Questions site http://ask.cakephp.org and help others with their CakePHP related questions. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cake-php+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php
Re: CakePHP 1.3.7 released
looking forward to it -- Our newest site for the community: CakePHP Video Tutorials http://tv.cakephp.org Check out the new CakePHP Questions site http://ask.cakephp.org and help others with their CakePHP related questions. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cake-php+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php
Re: CakePHP 1.3.7 released
On Jan 22, 12:23 am, mark_story wrote: > On Jan 21, 7:12 am, NdJ wrote: > > > Hi Mark - loads and loads of kudos for the ever continuing progress of > > CakePHP - it's a framework I enjoy immensely. > > > Following on with the comments about comments for documentation:- > > > > > > Leave a comment with your thoughts on the proposed documentation > > > > > changes. > > > > > Ability to download in other formats is important, agreed. > > > > > Does Sphinx support the ability to do the following (as we have in the > > > > current cookbook, but I don't see in the Python /Django docs): > > > > > - ability for users to comment on the sections? > > > > I hate to say this in public, but the comments on the book have not > > > been successful in my eyes. They are filled with incorrect > > > information, misleading information and content that should have been > > > edits instead. > > > Ouch (well kinda) > > > User contributed comments are a double edged sword I have no doubt, > > comments get made, they may be wrong and no one really has time to > > monitor or catch errors and poorly crafted code suggestions. > > > On the flip side, user comments are routinely a valuable resource when > > trying to work stuff out. Consider what many of us do when facing a > > particular problem, we Google it to see if "someone" out there has > > already solved the given problem or something related to it. If you > > can't find a ready built piece of code you may often find hints, ideas > > and techniques that set you off on your way. > > > Consider two examples where comments work very well and are > > particularly powerful:- > > *http://php.net/manual/en > > *http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.5/en/ > > > Are they perfect? No. Are they enormously helpful, very often yes! > > > I doubt there is any perfect solution when it comes to API/Framework > > documentation like this, but loosing an _easy_ and _central_ place to > > communicate and share ideas with others about methods and functions > > feels like a terrible thing to loose - it's such fertile ground... > > > Is there a way we can continue the search for a documentation setup > > for CakePHP that includes comments? > > > Regards, > > NdJ > > Comments are a fertile ground, and sometimes they are fertile for > infestation of incorrect information. Unfortunately, the large bulk > of comments in the book are this kind. It pains me to say that, as > originally the hope was that they would be as useful as the comments > on php.net. But sadly it just never happened. I'd also like to point That's a real pain. I can imagine the head-twist it puts on the dedicated individuals who go to enormous efforts to create documentation in the first place. To see comments attached to their documentation that might be wrong, misleading or perhaps even nasty is not at all enjoyable. Not to mention the time sink. Uck! > out that there are _numerous_ documentation sets that have no > comments, and they seem to service their communities perfectly well. Yes, fair enough - RubyDoc is a great example of this. For me though, the fact that RubyDoc does not have comments drives me crazy and I'm forever Googling elsewhere to find people talking about stuff to discover more information. I'm guessing I'm not the only one doing this (I could be wrong!) > By we, I hope you mean you. If you feel the current suggestion is not > up to snuff, then please suggest a better one. Using sphinx doesn't > occlude the possibility of using disqus for comments. jQuery does > this for their documentation and it works. > > -Mark Never realized the comments at jQuery were driven with Disqus, I like the comments setup there, it's not dis-similar than php.net or dev.mysql.com. So yes, implementing comments in that manner seems like it would answer the call for comments functionality quite well. It also follows on with the theme of outsourcing non-core effort reducing the time sink. My bad, using the word "we" in my earlier comment I did not mean to imply ownership. Can I suggest something better than the Disqus approach? Probably not. Disqus certainly looks to be very quick to implement and shifts the burden of feature maintenance off your plate, not sure how you could do better. Regards, NdJ -- Our newest site for the community: CakePHP Video Tutorials http://tv.cakephp.org Check out the new CakePHP Questions site http://ask.cakephp.org and help others with their CakePHP related questions. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cake-php+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php
Re: CakePHP 1.3.7 released
My feeling, with regard to document like that at PHP.net, is that comments are a poor substitute for actually being able to edit the document yourself -- which with CakePHP you already can and will still be able to do. So I don't see comments as necessary. -- Our newest site for the community: CakePHP Video Tutorials http://tv.cakephp.org Check out the new CakePHP Questions site http://ask.cakephp.org and help others with their CakePHP related questions. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cake-php+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php
Re: CakePHP 1.3.7 released
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 11:23 AM, mark_story wrote: > > Comments are a fertile ground, and sometimes they are fertile for > infestation of incorrect information. Unfortunately, the large bulk > of comments in the book are this kind. It pains me to say that, as > originally the hope was that they would be as useful as the comments > on php.net. But sadly it just never happened. I'd also like to point > out that there are _numerous_ documentation sets that have no > comments, and they seem to service their communities perfectly well. > > By we, I hope you mean you. If you feel the current suggestion is not > up to snuff, then please suggest a better one. Using sphinx doesn't > occlude the possibility of using disqus for comments. jQuery does > this for their documentation and it works. I think that making the comments more visible would be a step in the right direction. Better to run them at the bottom of the page than in a weensy pop-up. By making them more prominent, perhaps errors or misinformation would be caught earlier. Which leads to my next suggestion: add a "flag" link to alert ... well, I'm not really sure who should be alerted. Or, allow comments to be responded to. Although that would mean having to display nested comments, which could become too crowded, and, anyway, might not necessarily be the best way to deal with incorrect info. OK, just thinking out loud here. But please at least make the comments more visible. There are probably some people who don't realise they're there. -- Our newest site for the community: CakePHP Video Tutorials http://tv.cakephp.org Check out the new CakePHP Questions site http://ask.cakephp.org and help others with their CakePHP related questions. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cake-php+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php
Re: CakePHP 1.3.7 released
On Jan 21, 7:12 am, NdJ wrote: > Hi Mark - loads and loads of kudos for the ever continuing progress of > CakePHP - it's a framework I enjoy immensely. > > Following on with the comments about comments for documentation:- > > > > > Leave a comment with your thoughts on the proposed documentation > > > > changes. > > > > Ability to download in other formats is important, agreed. > > > > Does Sphinx support the ability to do the following (as we have in the > > > current cookbook, but I don't see in the Python /Django docs): > > > > - ability for users to comment on the sections? > > > I hate to say this in public, but the comments on the book have not > > been successful in my eyes. They are filled with incorrect > > information, misleading information and content that should have been > > edits instead. > > Ouch (well kinda) > > User contributed comments are a double edged sword I have no doubt, > comments get made, they may be wrong and no one really has time to > monitor or catch errors and poorly crafted code suggestions. > > On the flip side, user comments are routinely a valuable resource when > trying to work stuff out. Consider what many of us do when facing a > particular problem, we Google it to see if "someone" out there has > already solved the given problem or something related to it. If you > can't find a ready built piece of code you may often find hints, ideas > and techniques that set you off on your way. > > Consider two examples where comments work very well and are > particularly powerful:- > *http://php.net/manual/en > *http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.5/en/ > > Are they perfect? No. Are they enormously helpful, very often yes! > > I doubt there is any perfect solution when it comes to API/Framework > documentation like this, but loosing an _easy_ and _central_ place to > communicate and share ideas with others about methods and functions > feels like a terrible thing to loose - it's such fertile ground... > > Is there a way we can continue the search for a documentation setup > for CakePHP that includes comments? > > Regards, > NdJ Comments are a fertile ground, and sometimes they are fertile for infestation of incorrect information. Unfortunately, the large bulk of comments in the book are this kind. It pains me to say that, as originally the hope was that they would be as useful as the comments on php.net. But sadly it just never happened. I'd also like to point out that there are _numerous_ documentation sets that have no comments, and they seem to service their communities perfectly well. By we, I hope you mean you. If you feel the current suggestion is not up to snuff, then please suggest a better one. Using sphinx doesn't occlude the possibility of using disqus for comments. jQuery does this for their documentation and it works. -Mark -- Our newest site for the community: CakePHP Video Tutorials http://tv.cakephp.org Check out the new CakePHP Questions site http://ask.cakephp.org and help others with their CakePHP related questions. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cake-php+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php
Re: CakePHP 1.3.7 released
On Jan 21, 1:12 pm, NdJ wrote: > Hi Mark - loads and loads of kudos for the ever continuing progress of > CakePHP - it's a framework I enjoy immensely. > > Following on with the comments about comments for documentation:- > > > > > Leave a comment with your thoughts on the proposed documentation > > > > changes. > > > > Ability to download in other formats is important, agreed. > > > > Does Sphinx support the ability to do the following (as we have in the > > > current cookbook, but I don't see in the Python /Django docs): > > > > - ability for users to comment on the sections? > > > I hate to say this in public, but the comments on the book have not > > been successful in my eyes. They are filled with incorrect > > information, misleading information and content that should have been > > edits instead. > > Ouch (well kinda) > > User contributed comments are a double edged sword I have no doubt, > comments get made, they may be wrong and no one really has time to > monitor or catch errors and poorly crafted code suggestions. > > On the flip side, user comments are routinely a valuable resource when > trying to work stuff out. Consider what many of us do when facing a > particular problem, we Google it to see if "someone" out there has > already solved the given problem or something related to it. If you > can't find a ready built piece of code you may often find hints, ideas > and techniques that set you off on your way. > > Consider two examples where comments work very well and are > particularly powerful:- > *http://php.net/manual/en > *http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.5/en/ > > Are they perfect? No. Are they enormously helpful, very often yes! > > I doubt there is any perfect solution when it comes to API/Framework > documentation like this, but loosing an _easy_ and _central_ place to > communicate and share ideas with others about methods and functions > feels like a terrible thing to loose - it's such fertile ground... > > Is there a way we can continue the search for a documentation setup > for CakePHP that includes comments? Would you mind pointing at any comment you've seen in the book that you consider appropriate? AD -- Our newest site for the community: CakePHP Video Tutorials http://tv.cakephp.org Check out the new CakePHP Questions site http://ask.cakephp.org and help others with their CakePHP related questions. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cake-php+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php
Re: CakePHP 1.3.7 released
Hi Mark - loads and loads of kudos for the ever continuing progress of CakePHP - it's a framework I enjoy immensely. Following on with the comments about comments for documentation:- > > > Leave a comment with your thoughts on the proposed documentation changes. > > > Ability to download in other formats is important, agreed. > > > Does Sphinx support the ability to do the following (as we have in the > > current cookbook, but I don't see in the Python /Django docs): > > > - ability for users to comment on the sections? > > I hate to say this in public, but the comments on the book have not > been successful in my eyes. They are filled with incorrect > information, misleading information and content that should have been > edits instead. Ouch (well kinda) User contributed comments are a double edged sword I have no doubt, comments get made, they may be wrong and no one really has time to monitor or catch errors and poorly crafted code suggestions. On the flip side, user comments are routinely a valuable resource when trying to work stuff out. Consider what many of us do when facing a particular problem, we Google it to see if "someone" out there has already solved the given problem or something related to it. If you can't find a ready built piece of code you may often find hints, ideas and techniques that set you off on your way. Consider two examples where comments work very well and are particularly powerful:- * http://php.net/manual/en * http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.5/en/ Are they perfect? No. Are they enormously helpful, very often yes! I doubt there is any perfect solution when it comes to API/Framework documentation like this, but loosing an _easy_ and _central_ place to communicate and share ideas with others about methods and functions feels like a terrible thing to loose - it's such fertile ground... Is there a way we can continue the search for a documentation setup for CakePHP that includes comments? Regards, NdJ -- Our newest site for the community: CakePHP Video Tutorials http://tv.cakephp.org Check out the new CakePHP Questions site http://ask.cakephp.org and help others with their CakePHP related questions. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cake-php+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php
Re: CakePHP 1.3.7 released
Awesome, great work! I just realized I am on 1.3.4 still, time to upgrade, haha. On Jan 20, 8:12 am, mark_story wrote: > On Jan 20, 1:22 am, keymaster wrote: > > > Firstly, Mark - a tremendous thank you and feelings of admiration for > > your tremendous skills, good ideas, and all the time you and the rest > > of the team are putting in, to make this great community what it is. > > > > Leave a comment with your thoughts on the proposed documentation changes. > > > Ability to download in other formats is important, agreed. > > > Does Sphinx support the ability to do the following (as we have in the > > current cookbook, but I don't see in the Python /Django docs): > > > - ability for users to comment on the sections? > > I hate to say this in public, but the comments on the book have not > been successful in my eyes. They are filled with incorrect > information, misleading information and content that should have been > edits instead. > > > - ability for users to contribue docn? > > Yes all the docs will be on github. Contributing will be as simple as > forking, editing and sending pull requests. There is also some > thought being put towards creating a web editing interface behind > sphinx generated docs as well. The web interface would probably work > somewhat similarly to the existing book, with using git instead of a > database for documentation content. > > > - ability to see recent changes? > > git log is great for that. Not only would you be able to see the logs > for changes, but also the exact content changed as well. > > > > > In general, I agree with a general philosophy of outsourcing (eg. > > github, lighthouse, sphinx, etc.) all stuff which is not "core > > business" as it just drains time. > > Me too, we're not experts in the realms we 'outsource' and using > quality tools makes everyones life easier and simpler. > > -Mark -- Our newest site for the community: CakePHP Video Tutorials http://tv.cakephp.org Check out the new CakePHP Questions site http://ask.cakephp.org and help others with their CakePHP related questions. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cake-php+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php
Re: CakePHP 1.3.7 released
On Jan 20, 1:22 am, keymaster wrote: > Firstly, Mark - a tremendous thank you and feelings of admiration for > your tremendous skills, good ideas, and all the time you and the rest > of the team are putting in, to make this great community what it is. > > > Leave a comment with your thoughts on the proposed documentation changes. > > Ability to download in other formats is important, agreed. > > Does Sphinx support the ability to do the following (as we have in the > current cookbook, but I don't see in the Python /Django docs): > > - ability for users to comment on the sections? I hate to say this in public, but the comments on the book have not been successful in my eyes. They are filled with incorrect information, misleading information and content that should have been edits instead. > - ability for users to contribue docn? Yes all the docs will be on github. Contributing will be as simple as forking, editing and sending pull requests. There is also some thought being put towards creating a web editing interface behind sphinx generated docs as well. The web interface would probably work somewhat similarly to the existing book, with using git instead of a database for documentation content. > - ability to see recent changes? git log is great for that. Not only would you be able to see the logs for changes, but also the exact content changed as well. > > In general, I agree with a general philosophy of outsourcing (eg. > github, lighthouse, sphinx, etc.) all stuff which is not "core > business" as it just drains time. Me too, we're not experts in the realms we 'outsource' and using quality tools makes everyones life easier and simpler. -Mark -- Our newest site for the community: CakePHP Video Tutorials http://tv.cakephp.org Check out the new CakePHP Questions site http://ask.cakephp.org and help others with their CakePHP related questions. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cake-php+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php
Re: CakePHP 1.3.7 released
The fix was that in nocache blocks you couldn't access the viewVars as they were not serialized. Now they are. -Mark On Jan 19, 9:51 pm, cricket wrote: > On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 8:18 PM, mark_story wrote: > > The CakePHP core team is proud to announce the immediate availability > > of CakePHP release 1.3.7. > > Thanks, all. > > Mark (or anyone), could you expand on "View variables are now passed > to CacheHelper, making view caches more powerful"? I had a look at the > changelog; I presume this refers to, "[a7c7436] Passing viewVars to > cache views, avoiding cake:nocache problems." I've looked at the diff > and I'm still not getting it. Does this mean we no longer need to use > cake:nocache? Or just that this fixes a problem with it? -- Our newest site for the community: CakePHP Video Tutorials http://tv.cakephp.org Check out the new CakePHP Questions site http://ask.cakephp.org and help others with their CakePHP related questions. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cake-php+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php
Re: CakePHP 1.3.7 released
congratulations and thank you. On Jan 19, 8:18 pm, mark_story wrote: > The CakePHP core team is proud to announce the immediate availability > of CakePHP release 1.3.7. Since the release of CakePHP 1.3.6 a month > and half ago, there have been over 55 commits[1] and 40 tickets > resolved. There have been a few changes that may affect your > application: > > - Usage of serialize() was removed from SecurityComponent. > - View::element() now correctly uses '.ctp' as a fallback extension. > - View variables are now passed to CacheHelper, making view caches > more powerful. > - EmailComponent now registers and un-registers its view class, this > fixes issues where helpers needing a view would trigger errors. > - Memcache engine now correctly stores entries with expiry dates > greater than 30 days. > - Empty session ids no longer cause errors with database session > storage. > - TextHelper::autoLinkEmails works with emails containing '. > - Console test suite now exits with a non zero code on test failure. > > Download the release[2] today, and catch up on the updates by perusing > the changelog[1]. > > Development on 2.0 is continuing well, and thanks to everyone who has > taken the time to give it a spin and report any issues found with it. > At this time we will start removing the changelog wiki pages on > lighthouse. Instead all changelogs can be found on cakephp.org > itself[1]. This will keep the wiki list shorter, and solves issues > with long changelogs not fitting onto a single wiki page in > lighthouse. > > The CakePHP team is considering a change in how documentation is > generated for future versions. While the current book.cakephp.org > application has served us extremely well over the past 3 years, we are > always looking to improve the documentation for CakePHP. We > frequently get requests for documentation in other formats, such as > CHM, PDF and e-books. Its also become evident over time that > converting the book content into these formats is no small task. In > order to address these needs, we're considering moving the > documentation for 2.0 into text files, and using a tool like sphinx[4] > to generate the documentation. Sphinx is used for documentation by a > number of large open source projects such as Python, Django and > Bazaar. We feel that this approach will allow us to provide > documentation in a number of requested formats, as well as maintain > the existing work on translations and involve the community through > contributions. However, documentation is a community effort, and we'd > like some feedback on the direction we take with the documentation. > Leave a comment with your thoughts on the proposed documentation > changes. > > These are exciting times for CakePHP documentation, the new > CakePHPTV[5] site is gaining momentum and some great tutorials have > been already published. We'd like to remind you that the video > tutorials contest is in place until February 14, when we will be > counting community votes for your tutorials and start giving away > awesome prizes including a brand new iPad. Don't forget to get your > screen cast filmed and enter the contest at tv.cakephp.org to start > participating! > > A huge thanks to all involved in terms of both contributions through > commits and diffs, as well as those that took the time and effort to > submit tickets, update documentation and otherwise contribute to the > framework. Without you there would be no CakePHP. > > - View the changelog[1] > - Download a packaged release [2] > > Links > > - [1]http://cakephp.org/changelogs/1.3.7 > - [2]http://github.com/cakephp/cakephp/downloads > - [3]http://cakephp.lighthouseapp.com/projects/42648 > - [4]http://sphinx.pocoo.org/ > - [5]http://tv.cakephp.org/launch-competition -- Our newest site for the community: CakePHP Video Tutorials http://tv.cakephp.org Check out the new CakePHP Questions site http://ask.cakephp.org and help others with their CakePHP related questions. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cake-php+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php
Re: CakePHP 1.3.7 released
Thank you! After some months of working with CakePHP I now really like the framework. :-) I'm looking forward to 2.0! Keep up the nice work! On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 7:22 AM, keymaster wrote: > > Firstly, Mark - a tremendous thank you and feelings of admiration for > your tremendous skills, good ideas, and all the time you and the rest > of the team are putting in, to make this great community what it is. > >> Leave a comment with your thoughts on the proposed documentation changes. > > Ability to download in other formats is important, agreed. > > Does Sphinx support the ability to do the following (as we have in the > current cookbook, but I don't see in the Python /Django docs): > > - ability for users to comment on the sections? > - ability for users to contribue docn? > - ability to see recent changes? > > In general, I agree with a general philosophy of outsourcing (eg. > github, lighthouse, sphinx, etc.) all stuff which is not "core > business" as it just drains time. > > -- > Our newest site for the community: CakePHP Video Tutorials > http://tv.cakephp.org > Check out the new CakePHP Questions site http://ask.cakephp.org and help > others with their CakePHP related questions. > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > cake-php+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php > -- Our newest site for the community: CakePHP Video Tutorials http://tv.cakephp.org Check out the new CakePHP Questions site http://ask.cakephp.org and help others with their CakePHP related questions. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cake-php+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php
Re: CakePHP 1.3.7 released
Firstly, Mark - a tremendous thank you and feelings of admiration for your tremendous skills, good ideas, and all the time you and the rest of the team are putting in, to make this great community what it is. > Leave a comment with your thoughts on the proposed documentation changes. Ability to download in other formats is important, agreed. Does Sphinx support the ability to do the following (as we have in the current cookbook, but I don't see in the Python /Django docs): - ability for users to comment on the sections? - ability for users to contribue docn? - ability to see recent changes? In general, I agree with a general philosophy of outsourcing (eg. github, lighthouse, sphinx, etc.) all stuff which is not "core business" as it just drains time. -- Our newest site for the community: CakePHP Video Tutorials http://tv.cakephp.org Check out the new CakePHP Questions site http://ask.cakephp.org and help others with their CakePHP related questions. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cake-php+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php
Re: CakePHP 1.3.7 released
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 8:18 PM, mark_story wrote: > The CakePHP core team is proud to announce the immediate availability > of CakePHP release 1.3.7. Thanks, all. Mark (or anyone), could you expand on "View variables are now passed to CacheHelper, making view caches more powerful"? I had a look at the changelog; I presume this refers to, "[a7c7436] Passing viewVars to cache views, avoiding cake:nocache problems." I've looked at the diff and I'm still not getting it. Does this mean we no longer need to use cake:nocache? Or just that this fixes a problem with it? -- Our newest site for the community: CakePHP Video Tutorials http://tv.cakephp.org Check out the new CakePHP Questions site http://ask.cakephp.org and help others with their CakePHP related questions. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cake-php+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php
Re: CakePHP 1.3.7 released
Mark, Thank you and team for your great work. On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 8:18 PM, mark_story wrote: > The CakePHP core team is proud to announce the immediate availability > of CakePHP release 1.3.7. Since the release of CakePHP 1.3.6 a month > and half ago, there have been over 55 commits[1] and 40 tickets > resolved. There have been a few changes that may affect your > application: > > - Usage of serialize() was removed from SecurityComponent. > - View::element() now correctly uses '.ctp' as a fallback extension. > - View variables are now passed to CacheHelper, making view caches > more powerful. > - EmailComponent now registers and un-registers its view class, this > fixes issues where helpers needing a view would trigger errors. > - Memcache engine now correctly stores entries with expiry dates > greater than 30 days. > - Empty session ids no longer cause errors with database session > storage. > - TextHelper::autoLinkEmails works with emails containing '. > - Console test suite now exits with a non zero code on test failure. > > Download the release[2] today, and catch up on the updates by perusing > the changelog[1]. > > Development on 2.0 is continuing well, and thanks to everyone who has > taken the time to give it a spin and report any issues found with it. > At this time we will start removing the changelog wiki pages on > lighthouse. Instead all changelogs can be found on cakephp.org > itself[1]. This will keep the wiki list shorter, and solves issues > with long changelogs not fitting onto a single wiki page in > lighthouse. > > The CakePHP team is considering a change in how documentation is > generated for future versions. While the current book.cakephp.org > application has served us extremely well over the past 3 years, we are > always looking to improve the documentation for CakePHP. We > frequently get requests for documentation in other formats, such as > CHM, PDF and e-books. Its also become evident over time that > converting the book content into these formats is no small task. In > order to address these needs, we're considering moving the > documentation for 2.0 into text files, and using a tool like sphinx[4] > to generate the documentation. Sphinx is used for documentation by a > number of large open source projects such as Python, Django and > Bazaar. We feel that this approach will allow us to provide > documentation in a number of requested formats, as well as maintain > the existing work on translations and involve the community through > contributions. However, documentation is a community effort, and we'd > like some feedback on the direction we take with the documentation. > Leave a comment with your thoughts on the proposed documentation > changes. > > These are exciting times for CakePHP documentation, the new > CakePHPTV[5] site is gaining momentum and some great tutorials have > been already published. We'd like to remind you that the video > tutorials contest is in place until February 14, when we will be > counting community votes for your tutorials and start giving away > awesome prizes including a brand new iPad. Don't forget to get your > screen cast filmed and enter the contest at tv.cakephp.org to start > participating! > > A huge thanks to all involved in terms of both contributions through > commits and diffs, as well as those that took the time and effort to > submit tickets, update documentation and otherwise contribute to the > framework. Without you there would be no CakePHP. > > - View the changelog[1] > - Download a packaged release [2] > > Links > > - [1] http://cakephp.org/changelogs/1.3.7 > - [2] http://github.com/cakephp/cakephp/downloads > - [3] http://cakephp.lighthouseapp.com/projects/42648 > - [4] http://sphinx.pocoo.org/ > - [5] http://tv.cakephp.org/launch-competition > > -- > Our newest site for the community: CakePHP Video Tutorials > http://tv.cakephp.org > Check out the new CakePHP Questions site http://ask.cakephp.org and help > others with their CakePHP related questions. > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > cake-php+unsubscr...@googlegroups.comFor > more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php > -- Our newest site for the community: CakePHP Video Tutorials http://tv.cakephp.org Check out the new CakePHP Questions site http://ask.cakephp.org and help others with their CakePHP related questions. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cake-php+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php
CakePHP 1.3.7 released
The CakePHP core team is proud to announce the immediate availability of CakePHP release 1.3.7. Since the release of CakePHP 1.3.6 a month and half ago, there have been over 55 commits[1] and 40 tickets resolved. There have been a few changes that may affect your application: - Usage of serialize() was removed from SecurityComponent. - View::element() now correctly uses '.ctp' as a fallback extension. - View variables are now passed to CacheHelper, making view caches more powerful. - EmailComponent now registers and un-registers its view class, this fixes issues where helpers needing a view would trigger errors. - Memcache engine now correctly stores entries with expiry dates greater than 30 days. - Empty session ids no longer cause errors with database session storage. - TextHelper::autoLinkEmails works with emails containing '. - Console test suite now exits with a non zero code on test failure. Download the release[2] today, and catch up on the updates by perusing the changelog[1]. Development on 2.0 is continuing well, and thanks to everyone who has taken the time to give it a spin and report any issues found with it. At this time we will start removing the changelog wiki pages on lighthouse. Instead all changelogs can be found on cakephp.org itself[1]. This will keep the wiki list shorter, and solves issues with long changelogs not fitting onto a single wiki page in lighthouse. The CakePHP team is considering a change in how documentation is generated for future versions. While the current book.cakephp.org application has served us extremely well over the past 3 years, we are always looking to improve the documentation for CakePHP. We frequently get requests for documentation in other formats, such as CHM, PDF and e-books. Its also become evident over time that converting the book content into these formats is no small task. In order to address these needs, we're considering moving the documentation for 2.0 into text files, and using a tool like sphinx[4] to generate the documentation. Sphinx is used for documentation by a number of large open source projects such as Python, Django and Bazaar. We feel that this approach will allow us to provide documentation in a number of requested formats, as well as maintain the existing work on translations and involve the community through contributions. However, documentation is a community effort, and we'd like some feedback on the direction we take with the documentation. Leave a comment with your thoughts on the proposed documentation changes. These are exciting times for CakePHP documentation, the new CakePHPTV[5] site is gaining momentum and some great tutorials have been already published. We'd like to remind you that the video tutorials contest is in place until February 14, when we will be counting community votes for your tutorials and start giving away awesome prizes including a brand new iPad. Don't forget to get your screen cast filmed and enter the contest at tv.cakephp.org to start participating! A huge thanks to all involved in terms of both contributions through commits and diffs, as well as those that took the time and effort to submit tickets, update documentation and otherwise contribute to the framework. Without you there would be no CakePHP. - View the changelog[1] - Download a packaged release [2] Links - [1] http://cakephp.org/changelogs/1.3.7 - [2] http://github.com/cakephp/cakephp/downloads - [3] http://cakephp.lighthouseapp.com/projects/42648 - [4] http://sphinx.pocoo.org/ - [5] http://tv.cakephp.org/launch-competition -- Our newest site for the community: CakePHP Video Tutorials http://tv.cakephp.org Check out the new CakePHP Questions site http://ask.cakephp.org and help others with their CakePHP related questions. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cake-php+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php
