On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 6:54 PM, Ben Bangert <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On May 23, 2009, at 4:26 PM, Jorge Vargas wrote:
>
>> The net today is full with services we pull and mix and match between
>> our sites.
>> - Google ads
>> - google analitics
>> - youtube, vimeo, embed tags
>> - other site specific tags
>> - post to reddit,digg,etc buttons
>> - RSS buttons
>> - etc.
>>
>> So why not pack all those little snippets into a library?
>>
>> This ideas occurred to me and I want to know if people are already
>> doing it, and if it's worth adding it to webhelpers or even releasing
>> it as an addon package.
>>
>> what do you guys think?
>
> It makes sense to me. I don't think they'd be very large, so I'm
> inclined to think this would be part of WebHelpers? Or I suppose it
> could be a new little package called 'social helpers' or something, to
> indicate its for all the various common social tidbits people throw on
> websites.

They might fit into WebHelpers if we define more precisely what they
would be.   Functions that produce HTML and Javascript?  Would they be
framework neutral or specific to Pylons?

We could make a module or package for cloud services.  My first
thought would be to put each provider in a separate module, although
that might lead to lots of tiny modules.  But at this point each
provider is pretty much unique.    I would veer toward those that make
an attempt at interoperability (via OpenSocial, GData, etc), but those
may not be what users need (e.g., some users need to tie specifically
to YouTube because it's the biggest).

Another question is whether WebHelpers could keep up with the changing
providers.  Would we end up in the situation we were in earlier with
Javascript libraries, where we pick one and then another one eclipses
it?

On another note, I'm putting together a WebHelpers 1.0 beta, and
thinking this is a good time to delete webhelpers.rails and the other
deprecated packages.  Would that seriously ruin anybody's day?  You
can stick with the 0.6 series if you need them, and I don't think the
Pylons dependency needs to change since easy_install should
automatically pick the latest version, but you would still be able to
downgrade without running afoul of the dependencies.

-- 
Mike Orr <[email protected]>

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"pylons-discuss" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to