gnuherds-app-dev
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: task 8833 -- proposed steps -- improving the design


From: Federico Gimenez Nieto
Subject: Re: task 8833 -- proposed steps -- improving the design
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 09:52:28 +0100

> The Donations-only information would be just 3 fields.  Adding a new table we 
> add complexity to the data base schema. IMHO it is not needed.  

You are right, i was wondering if the relation between the JobOffer (or
Entity, in the gnuherds sense) and Donation entities (this entity in the
relational sense) would be a many-to-many one: that is, if there would
be "generic" donations for each group of entities (gnuherds sense) or
for each kind of job, for example. If the JobOffer has_many donations
and the Entity (gnuherds sense) also has_many donations, then we should
use only the D1_Donations table.

> I think it could be interesting :)
> 
> Right now, the webapp is sending emails at:
> 
>   * crontabs/raise_Alerts.php
>   * Layer-2__Business_logic/content/forms/Entity_form.php
>   * Layer-2__Business_logic/content/forms/Lost_Password_form.php
>   * Layer-5__DB_operation/Entity.php
> 
> So, we can think such class as a general library. Therefore, we could add the 
> mailing class at:
> 
>   * lib/Mailing.php
> 
> What do you think? As usual we could be mistaken.

In my opinion it could be a good solution, with lots of benefits. For
example, with all the mailing functions in such class we could
refactorize some actions, as setting the mail sender or calling the send
function.


> P.S.: I think you are breaking the email threads again. I do not see the 
> below 
> entries in the source of your last reply:
> 
>     References:   ..value..
>     In-Reply-To:  ..value..
> 
> Are you using the "Reply to all" or "Reply to" functions of your email 
> client?

Uff, this again! Sorry, i don't know why is this happening, but always
happens when using the webmail client, although i hit "reply to all". I
see that the message which breaks the thread is the one from 2008/11/15,
isn't it? The next one, from 2008/11/16, is again on the right place,
and it is sent from the same client... Well, i hope that this one will
have the correct headers.

Cheers
Federico





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]