Abhilash Raj writes:
I *think* we have had a discussion before about what should be a better default value for member.moderation_action and nonmeember.moderation_action. Instead of just copying them to the field, we could set it to defer in which it case the lookup automatically picks up the value of the list's default_(non)member_action.
Or we could *always* copy the default styles to a new style that the list owner owns and can use for his other lists.
These somewhat analogous to "deep binding" and "shallow binding" (actually they should be called "deep lookup" and "shallow lookup") in Lisp implementation. They can have the same semantics (Mailman can choose, the point of using Lisp as an example is that the semantics are defined by the language definition and the implementation must match that definition), but shallow binding requires more care in implementation (the binding is basically a cache). I think probably shallow binding is the way to go because changing these values is much less frequent than referencing them.
I wanted to ask that what should be the behavior when a user changes the 'default_member_action' and 'default_nonmember_action' attributes. Since, the values of these attributes are copied to the 'member.moderation_action' at the time of the creation of a new member. So, any changes made to the 'default_member_action' and 'default_nonmember_action' attributes will not be reflected in the already created members which I think may not be the desirable behavior.
This is easy. Just think about what happens if you change the creation default from unmoderated to moderated, and automatically copy that to an existing list. Would you want to be that list owner?