[pLog-svn] r6088 - plog/branches/lifetype-1.2/class/security

[Jon Daley]

 	Well, hopefully Paul will chime in here.  I am pretty sure I 
understand what you did.  Did you read Paul's (I assume it was Paul) 
comment about why he added the second loop?  I think we need to run the 
entire pipeline twice, particularly those filters that ran the first time.
 	The thing that we need to have is the "executed" flag passed into 
each filter, and then each filter can decide whether it wants to run twice 
or not.

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, Mark Wu wrote:

> Hi Jon:
>
> We need 2nd run, becasue we want to run "all  pipesline filters".... it is
> right...
>
> But, we do need to remove the filters already executed in 2nd run ....
>
> So, actually, we don't need 2nd run, if we don't break the 1st run.
>
> So, actually we just need 1 for-loop to run all pipeline filters, and get
> the result we want.
>
> This is what I did in rev 6089.
>
> Mark
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: plog-svn-bounces at devel.lifetype.net
>> [mailto:plog-svn-bounces at devel.lifetype.net] On Behalf Of Jon Daley
>> Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 9:34 PM
>> To: LifeType Developer List
>> Subject: Re: [pLog-svn] r6088 -
>> plog/branches/lifetype-1.2/class/security
>>
>> On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, Mark Wu wrote:
>>> Yep, I think paul add the 2nd for-loop to make sure the
>> "rest of filters"
>>> can have change to executed.
>>>
>>> But, we have to remove those "executed" fiters when we re-run all
>>> pipeline filters, or the same pipeline filter will execute twice.
>>  	I don't think you can simply make them not run at all.
>> I think the reason the second run is there is so if one
>> filter marks a comment as spam, the other filters can act on
>> that behavior and do something different.  My guess is that
>> simply removing the second run isn't going to be the right
>> fix in the long run, but I don't really have time to look at
>> it.  Perhaps Paul remembers more of the details than I do?
>>
>>> ** About the code re-format, mm.... I just trim the white
>> space in the
>>> end-of-line...
>>  	I am in favor of removing whitespace and windows
>> line-feeds, but I agree with Oscar, it does make it really
>> hard to see the code changes in the emails.  I really like
>> seeing the code changes via email, it is easy for me to
>> glance over the changes and make sure there aren't any simple
>> bugs, without much effort.
>>  	If you could either check in the whitespace changes
>> prior to your change, or else reply to the commit message
>> with the output of the below command, that would be helpful.
>>    svn diff -x -w -c <revision number>
>>
>> (I think you need to add the following to your subversion
>> config file to let you do ignore-whitespace diffs) [helpers]
>> diff-cmd = /usr/bin/diff
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> pLog-svn mailing list
>> pLog-svn at devel.lifetype.net
>> http://limedaley.com/mailman/listinfo/plog-svn
>
> _______________________________________________
> pLog-svn mailing list
> pLog-svn at devel.lifetype.net
> http://limedaley.com/mailman/listinfo/plog-svn
>

-- 
Jon Daley
http://jon.limedaley.com/

Worship, in all its grades and kinds,
is the response of the creature to the Eternal.
--Evelyn Underhill