On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 10:45 PM, Mike Orr <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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? > I think they should be framework neutral. I'm planning on using them on TG so they better be :p I also think they should produce very little html and JS. In fact the average helper will probably be no bigger than 5 tags.
> 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). > My take on this is that we shouldn't provide a helper that no one will use. For example service X should be really cool but if no one uses it but you then it shouldn't be on the system. Based on that principle I think things will be the other way around, We'l start with the big sites and things will grow from there. > 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? > I don't think this will happen. As this type of thing normally has a very backwards compatible api, using youtube as an example I'm almost certain their embed tag has been the same for quite some time. > 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? it will do to me, I'm still using a couple of those helpers. For example I recently used the phone number stuff for a US only site. > 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. This is a good thing. > > -- > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
