Jon Stahl wrote:
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Jon Stahl wrote:
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
Geir Bækholt · Jarn wrote:

On Dec 23, 2007, at 01:31 , Martin Aspeli wrote:

The PLIP also mentions a better RSS portlet. I won't be able to do that, but rumour is that Wichert has done it in the "feedmixer" portlet already. Is that correct? If not, do we have any other volunteers?

Feedmixer is a better RSS portlet, and should cover most usecases. It aggregates multiple feeds to one (and includes a "more…" listing.) , but you can easily cover the simple usecase of a single feed as well. 
This is what I send to Martin earlier:

    Feedmixer is not a 'better' portlet (even if its implementation
    actually is better). Feedmixer serves a different purpose: a
    portlet and page that shows data aggregated from multiple feeds.
    That is quite different than what the standard RSS portlet does:
    that makes it extremely easy to add a portlet for a single feed.
    The use cases differ enough to warrant
    separate portlets.

    The main problem people have with the current RSS portlet is that
    it does not work for anonymous users, or it only works as long as
    there are authenticated users active as well. I fixed that in svn
    a while ago but that hasn't made it into a release yet.

based on that we'll keep feedmixer as a separate product.

Obviously, I defer to pretty much everyone on the pure technical issues, but, having used both the included RSS portlet and feedmixer, I think that Feedmixer is indeed a vastly "better" RSS portlet (in addition to its other features). As Geir points out, Feedmixer supports every use case that the basic RSS portlet does, and several more besides. I think it is in fact confusing to have two different RSS portlet products like this; why not just ship the more powerful one and focus all of our effort on maintaining that one, rather than spread effort across two products?

The 'original' RSS portlet has two important qualities:

* it is easier to configure: it picks up the portlet title from the feed
  title automatically.
* it integrates the RSS feed source more tightly by going there directly
  for the full list of feed items instead of creating a separate page in

Both are useful qualities imho.

+1. Given limited developer time, I would think that time might be best spent on giving Feedmixer those behaviors as options rather than maintaining two similar products over the long term. I could imagine Feedmixer picking up the title automatically, but letting the user override if they want and making the link behavior configurable.

FeedMixer can not do that since it handles multiple RSS feeds. In theory you could make it do that if you only configure a single RSS feed in it, but that would give it very different behaviour depending on how many RSS feeds you configure, which can only be confusing to users.


Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   It is simple to make things.                  It is hard to make things simple.

Framework-Team mailing list

Reply via email to