projects / irc.git / blame
| Commit | Line | Data |
|---|---|---|
| 3bd189cb JR |
1 | <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN"> |
| 2 | <HTML> | |
| 3 | <HEAD> | |
| 4 | <TITLE> [IRCServices] Does anyone use nested nick links? | |
| 5 | </TITLE> | |
| 6 | <LINK REL="Index" HREF="index.html" > | |
| 7 | <LINK REL="made" HREF="mailto:ircservices%40ircservices.za.net?Subject=%5BIRCServices%5D%20Does%20anyone%20use%20nested%20nick%20links%3F&In-Reply-To="> | |
| 8 | <META NAME="robots" CONTENT="index,nofollow"> | |
| 9 | <META http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"> | |
| 10 | <LINK REL="Previous" HREF="001853.html"> | |
| 11 | <LINK REL="Next" HREF="001855.html"> | |
| 12 | </HEAD> | |
| 13 | <BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff"> | |
| 14 | <H1>[IRCServices] Does anyone use nested nick links?</H1> | |
| 15 | <B>Andrew Church</B> | |
| 16 | <A HREF="mailto:ircservices%40ircservices.za.net?Subject=%5BIRCServices%5D%20Does%20anyone%20use%20nested%20nick%20links%3F&In-Reply-To=" | |
| 17 | TITLE="[IRCServices] Does anyone use nested nick links?">achurch at achurch.org | |
| 18 | </A><BR> | |
| 19 | <I>Tue May 15 03:21:01 PDT 2001</I> | |
| 20 | <P><UL> | |
| 21 | <LI>Previous message: <A HREF="001853.html">[IRCServices] Services 4.5.15 released | |
| 22 | </A></li> | |
| 23 | <LI>Next message: <A HREF="001855.html">[IRCServices] Does anyone use nested nick links? | |
| 24 | </A></li> | |
| 25 | <LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B> | |
| 26 | <a href="date.html#1854">[ date ]</a> | |
| 27 | <a href="thread.html#1854">[ thread ]</a> | |
| 28 | <a href="subject.html#1854">[ subject ]</a> | |
| 29 | <a href="author.html#1854">[ author ]</a> | |
| 30 | </LI> | |
| 31 | </UL> | |
| 32 | <HR> | |
| 33 | <!--beginarticle--> | |
| 34 | <PRE> As the subject says, I'd like to know if anyone finds the nested | |
| 35 | link system in Services useful, or if it's unnecessary. I originally | |
| 36 | modeled the system after symbolic links on Unix (and other) filesystems, | |
| 37 | but as this makes for added complexity and has in fact led to a number | |
| 38 | of bugs in the past as well as administrative difficulties. So if | |
| 39 | there's no need for having multiple levels of nicks, I'm planning to | |
| 40 | just remove that capability in version 5 and limit links to a single | |
| 41 | level. | |
| 42 | ||
| 43 | Note that the only case in which this makes a visible difference is | |
| 44 | the following: | |
| 45 | * Register NickA | |
| 46 | * Register NickB | |
| 47 | * Link NickB to NickA | |
| 48 | * Register NickC | |
| 49 | * Link NickC to NickB | |
| 50 | * Unlink NickB from NickA | |
| 51 | * Change a setting on NickB | |
| 52 | In the nested (current) system, NickC would use the new setting for | |
| 53 | NickB set in the last step, while in a flat system, NickC would retain | |
| 54 | the original settings associated with nick A. I can see potential cases | |
| 55 | where this functionality can be useful, but if no one is actually using | |
| 56 | links that way, then there's no real need to retain the functionality. | |
| 57 | ||
| 58 | So, opinions, please: do you need nested links? | |
| 59 | ||
| 60 | --Andrew Church | |
| 61 | <A HREF="http://www.ircservices.za.net/mailman/listinfo/ircservices">achurch at achurch.org</A> | |
| 62 | <A HREF="http://achurch.org/">http://achurch.org/</A> | |
| 63 | ||
| 64 | </PRE> | |
| 65 | ||
| 66 | <!--endarticle--> | |
| 67 | <HR> | |
| 68 | <P><UL> | |
| 69 | <!--threads--> | |
| 70 | <LI>Previous message: <A HREF="001853.html">[IRCServices] Services 4.5.15 released | |
| 71 | </A></li> | |
| 72 | <LI>Next message: <A HREF="001855.html">[IRCServices] Does anyone use nested nick links? | |
| 73 | </A></li> | |
| 74 | <LI> <B>Messages sorted by:</B> | |
| 75 | <a href="date.html#1854">[ date ]</a> | |
| 76 | <a href="thread.html#1854">[ thread ]</a> | |
| 77 | <a href="subject.html#1854">[ subject ]</a> | |
| 78 | <a href="author.html#1854">[ author ]</a> | |
| 79 | </LI> | |
| 80 | </UL> | |
| 81 | ||
| 82 | </body></html> |