[thesite] RE: [***forum] Re: VotingReqs

[Warden, Matt]

On Feb 4, isaac had something to say about RE: [thesite] RE: [***forum] Re:...

>> make sense, or am i still talking rubbish? or both...
>
>
>Both.
>
>The question itself is the parent. Why individually set the priv on every
>single little vote when you can just set it at the parent?

because the field doesn't describe the question.

>Surely the priv value for each vote is going to have to come from somewhere
>when each person is voting, right?

of course. hence my point about this being probably the only way to do it,
even though it makes me sick to some degree. therefore, if we dont need
it, let's not do it.

>It's not their priv level, but the priv
>level of the parent question, right?

no. the priv of the question dictates who can view/vote on that question,
just as the priv of a vote should dictate who can view that vote.

eh?

>I do understand that we're trying to restrict viewing of the votes, but the
>votes will be deriving their priv from the question itself,

if *that's* true -- that the priv of the question will be the same priv as
viewing the result -- then there's no need for this discussion... because
there's no need for the field at all.

>and I fail to
>see the sense in replicating the value in two places (unless it's quicker
>for SELECT, and worth the sacrifice on the INSERT).

like i said above, if the question priv is the same as the result priv,
then there's no need to. but that's not what you originally said. you said
you wanted to be able to control the viewing of results independant of
controlling who can vote. putting result privs on the question is what i
have a problem with.

--
mattwarden
mattwarden.com