[ansel] Ansel::listGalleries()

[Heath S. Hendrickson]

Ben Chavet wrote:

>> I'd think that this would be easier if Ansel were using the true
>> parent->child relationship, right?  If so, it's another incentive for
>> working on the datatree driver to futher optimize it.
>
>
> Galleries & sub-galleries do use a true parent->child relationship.  
> Galleries &
> Images do not.  The only issue I see here is if you move a Gallery, 
> you have to
> update all of the images in the gallery to reflect the new location, 
> which
> could get messy.
>
That was the reasoning behind my point on the images having a 
parent->child relationship (though not terribly clear, I'll admit... can 
I claim delusions... I did have a 104 fever earlier today).  If that is 
the case, then you just have to change the parent for the 
gallery/sub-gallery and all the images follow along, right?

>>> I gotta admit, that interface is pretty sweet.  I especially like 
>>> the drop
>>> shadows.
>>>
>> I do like the interface, it's just nasty code (all nested tables).  I'd
>> like it to be XHTML/CSS with W3C conformance.  But maybe that's asking
>> too much.
>
>
> It's not asking too much if you supply a patch ;)  Seriously, though, 
> I agree on
> the XHTML/CSS conformance.
>
I had enough trouble redesigning a site I maintain in XHTML/CSS.... and 
it was a simple static site w/o PHP or all of the Horde stuff.  I'd 
think that it would be more than a simple patch to update Ansel to full 
XHTML1.0 Transitional... let alone Strict.

>> If we are tracking the uploaded date for an image, this should be really
>> easy to pull off.  A simple query like SELECT FROM <> WHERE
>> Attriubute="Date Uploaded" AND Value>=<Date - 7days>.  If we aren't
>> tracking that, we should add it as it is a piece of information that
>> does seem to be relevant and would be useful down the road (say I wanted
>> to do a search of my images and display all images uploaded between
>> certain dates).  The random image should be possible now.
>
>
> We already store a date on the images.  I don't remember right off if 
> it is used
> as the date upload or the date modified.  This should probably be 
> expanded.
>
I think it's the date modified... if you modify the image using the 
built-in functions.  So it's not a reliable date from a last-uploaded 
standpoint.

h