[ZDP] Discussion on Threaded Discussion
Mon, 17 Apr 2000 09:58:22 +0200
> > Why not merge this with Comments, though.
> > ( in this way it is going to be a bit like Michel Pelletier discussable
> > for each item in Zope.) The difference is not completely clear to me.
> For further discussion, please refer to:
OK, I agree with your analysis and your conclusion not to merge them
right now. THe only thing I 'worried' about was that the tools would
become too dispersed if you have different classes for very similar
> > Is it possible to send attachements?
> > It should be possible to change the ordering of discussions
> > (like in a mail/news reader)
> Adding attachements and sorting is planned.
> To see what else is planned, please refer to:
ok, refer to further remarks there.
> >The posting link should be somewhere else (I had to look for it now).
> > There should be a reply button at the bottom of each posting.
> I have added these suggestions into a Task:
> > Is the goal anything squishdot like, or much simpler? If the first, I have a
> > few suggestions for additions.
> Simple at first. Then we can talk about feature bloat ;-)
yep, of course. Just for curiosity: any reason why you don't take
standard Zope discussion facilities (ZDiscussions etc) as a starting
> > Why a discussions folder class and a discussions class? Can discussions also
> > be added to places elsewhere.
> Threaded discussions are separated into DiscussionFolders and
> Discussions so
> that you can give different rights to different Roles.
> DiscussionsFolders are added by Moderators, while Discussions can be
> by Visitors. For completeness's sake, we are also planning to perhaps
> add a
> DiscussionRoom which only a Manager can add, but this is not decided
Yes, ok, but does this mean that discussion could only take place inside
a dicussion folder. Wouldn't it be a good idea to allow moderators also
to add a dicussion thread to any item. In this way a discussion is
attached to any subject by a moderator, so to say. I realize this is
extending functionality, but perhaps later on. It's more an idea than
> BTW: I have already put your contextOrderer to good use in many places,
> and plan to use it more extensively in the future. The great thing
> is that it could also be used for changing arbitrary properties.
> For example you can change all properties with id "nickname" for
> example to enforce a certain naming scheme. I have added this
> as a Task:
Glad you liked it!