Message from discussion
Alternative attachment validation
Received: by 10.115.91.2 with SMTP id t2mr6063661wal.1196692847731;
Mon, 03 Dec 2007 06:40:47 -0800 (PST)
Return-Path: <technowee...@gmail.com>
Received: from rv-out-0910.google.com (rv-out-0910.google.com [209.85.198.187])
by mx.google.com with ESMTP id k36si48502425waf.2007.12.03.06.40.44;
Mon, 03 Dec 2007 06:40:47 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of technowee...@gmail.com designates 209.85.198.187 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.198.187;
Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of technowee...@gmail.com designates 209.85.198.187 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=technowee...@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header...@gmail.com
Received: by rv-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id c24so2541493rvf
for <attachment_fu@googlegroups.com>; Mon, 03 Dec 2007 06:40:41 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
bh=Y1abySnuuHClB2NEJaQSWAtGfd7s0pbXcCAJDeXFzTw=;
b=QlflxYeBF3DBwYexzLFbKdSWRYRj0naTKepSnM/gXWOnZQM9E5nMgbOjFqJAh6zM1W1jWbI5eeRDDkBHcolxBciZgI8F64xQYbmbjNa1H9cVuXQqCMeLbM3avLTHraXM9GmpNqt9GtB2BKiR5Jo2MhwdFMtqjKXrD0OzcY4qZJM=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
b=BLZGQDHAi7mWcCMPxh++qeTwygjoStGPiCOT9YR9ihSo6qILSJjyiHjTv9gZvtvuACrQbtlQqnxeBIjVleCX34PwmNXwm+aUg0MmLGL4g4zhr0PRE66JvpGtJpFFq/Qo92iQC4Hi0LVxjoYIBEwUkS33vyroJotgweDXejaXPQ0=
Received: by 10.140.83.41 with SMTP id g41mr2741743rvb.1196692841673;
Mon, 03 Dec 2007 06:40:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.141.161.14 with HTTP; Mon, 3 Dec 2007 06:40:41 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <48fe25b0712030640n6f670fbchecfc385564295fa6@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 08:40:41 -0600
From: "Rick Olson" <technowee...@gmail.com>
To: attachment_fu@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Alternative attachment validation
In-Reply-To: <584CE30C-820A-46EC-AB0C-1FC11D337...@toolmantim.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <584CE30C-820A-46EC-AB0C-1FC11D337...@toolmantim.com>
On 12/3/07, Tim Lucas <t.lu...@toolmantim.com> wrote:
>
> We all know attachment_fu validation messages suck.
>
> Here's my stab at something better:
> http://toolmantim.com/article/2007/12/3/rollin_your_own_attachment_fu_messages_evil_twin_stylee
>
> What ya reckon? Any suggestions on a better approach? Worth
> contributing something like this back to the plugin?
Looks good to me. A couple other ideas might be support for :if or
:unless options, or maybe a block for completely custom validations
using validates_each.
For the record, I'm not opposed to opening up commit access even more.
I'd like to eventually go with a git repo and give out public keys to
folks that want them. Rubinius style.
--
Rick Olson
http://lighthouseapp.com
http://weblog.techno-weenie.net
http://mephistoblog.com
|
