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

[Mark Wu]

HI Jon & Oscar:

Just try to revert to 6087, and give it a test!

When bayesian filter marked one comment as spam, it will add two comment
records into db.

That's why I say the pipeline always run twice.

Take the defualt filters as example , there are 3 filters

1. NullFilter
2. CommentFilter
3. BayesianFilter

The $pipeline->process() will run these 3 filter one by one...

in 1st run:
NullFilter->CommentFilter->BayesianFilter(Failed), then it break.

in 2nd run:
NullFilter->CommentFilter->BayesianFilter(Failed), won't break .....

For the time being, we don't think this is a problem, becasue we just "HIDE"
it ...

Take the authimage "deleteFile" for example, I put @ in front of unlink and
ignore the error message, becasue we have no idea why filters run twice.

So, I just combine these two runs into one, and make sure each "filter" run
once. Why I can make sure ... Becasue I did not use "break" to break the
for-loop, I just let it go through all filters.

* If some filters fails, I just keep the first failed result into
$this->_result
* If no filters fails, I just keep the last filter result into
$this->_result

It is exactly the old way does.

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 10:18 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:
> >>  	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.
> >
> > Yep, I read his comments about add second run , that why I 
> think the 
> > change is okay for us. Becasue I can make sure all pipeline filters 
> > run once. No more no less :D
> 
>  	I don't understand, if plugin A runs and trains the 
> comment as non-spam, and then plugin B runs and trains as 
> spam, in the two-run method, plugin A would get run again and 
> be able to clean up his bad train of the comment.
>  	Your method doesn't allow for that, correct?
> 
> >>  	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.
> >
> > Yes, this is what I did in rev. 6088.
>  	Hrm, I'll guess I'll have to look more into the code.  
> Plugins never run twice in your new method, so what you just 
> said is incorrect?
> 
> > BTW, did you test it yet? Does it work for you?
>  	I don't use any plugins that would require the 
> functionality that Paul added.  I don't expect it broke 
> anything that I do, since I only use hidden input.  Only 
> running once restricts what plugins can do, and depending on 
> what letter they start with, depends on if they run in the 
> correct order or not.
> 
> 
> --
> Jon Daley
> http://jon.limedaley.com/
> 
> As computer scientists, we don't like to think that we're fools.
> We like to think we are better than that.
> -- Professor Tygar
> _______________________________________________
> pLog-svn mailing list
> pLog-svn at devel.lifetype.net
> http://limedaley.com/mailman/listinfo/plog-svn