More comments below ...
Dave Johnson wrote:
Comments below...
On 6/15/06, Allen Gilliland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dave Johnson wrote:
> Thanks for the feedback. Lots of good suggestions there.
> On 6/14/06, Allen Gilliland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
My biggest concern with this is doing it on a weblog by weblog basis, if
we make this decision on a site-wide level then i think we will be in
better shape.
> 2 - Turn on Atlas, but continue to support old model
> site.macromodel=roller_3.0
> Velocity context loaded with either OLD or NEW model stuff,
depending on
> blog
> Create weblog page shows NEW themes only
> This is the default for upgrades
Again, doing this on a blog by blog basis has me *really* scared. I am
okay with this option as a site-wide option, but I see a lot of
potential problems doing it blog by blog.
I don't understand your concern here. What problems do you think we'll hit?
Well, take BSC for example. We've been using Roller since pre-1.0 days
and we have a lot of old blogs and a big pile of users. When we upgrade
to 3.0 we are going to have to maintain some backwards compatability for
old themes, so we are going to have to keep them around using the old
templates.
What happens if a new user signs up, creates a blog with macromodel=3.0,
and then tries to use one of the old themes? I don't see any (or
reason?) for Roller to try and decide what themes a user has access to
based on this setting, so it's entirely possible that a weblog with
macromodel=3.0 will attempt to use some pre-3.0 template code.
> One Roller site can support both classic and Atlas themes, but I
> really want to avoid having themes that use a mix of classic and Atlas
> macros. A weblog MUST pick which macro/model it will use. I was going
> to use website.pageModels as a flag to indicate which macro/model, but
> perhaps that is too confusing. Instead, we could force weblogs to
> declare which version of macros should be used.
>
> website.macrosVersion=2.0
To be honest, I don't think this is realistic. I agree that this is the
ideal way it would work, but I don't see it happening. We don't have
any real way of ensuring that upgraded installations don't do something
to make old template stuff available to weblogs that are set to use the
3.0 macros only.
I'm more concerned about this one. I'd hate to see weblogs with a mix
of both schemes.
I hate that thought as well, but I'm not sure we can prevent it. Maybe
it's possible, i'd need to think about it more, but right now it seems
problematic to me.
>> 3. I think we need to have a little more discussion about the feed
urls.
>> I didn't realize that the comment feeds needed to be available in
both
>> rss and atom, because that causes a problem with the current url
>> proposal. If we are planning to offer each possible feed in multiple
>> flavors (rss, atom, etc) then we need to plan for that a bit better.
>
> Best practice is to offer one feed format, so that's what I'd like
> Roller to do by default. Each weblog has two feeds: one for entries
> and one for comments. The feed format used by these feeds is
> determined by the weblog's website.feedType field, which may be either
> "atom_1.0" or "rss_2.0".
Hmm, this one has me a bit worried as well. Why is it a best practice
to only offer one type of feed format? Seems to me that only alienates
some users who can only support either rss or atom, but not both. I
prefer that we be able to support both feed types at the same time.
Anyone else know much about this? Should we offer both atom and rss
feeds for everything, or try and pick one or the other?
All feed readers support both Atom and RSS these days, so we're not
going to alientate anybody. I suppose we could offer, but not
advertise (via autodisco or otherwise) alternate formats using a
flavor= parameter, but I definitely like the idea of pick one.
And the Microsoft recommendations
http://blogs.msdn.com/rssteam/archive/2005/08/03/446904.aspx
Here's feed reader developere Nick Bradbury on the topic:
http://nick.typepad.com/blog/2006/05/pick_a_format_a.html
Google's Crazy Bob:
http://crazybob.org/2006/04/why-do-sites-provide-both-rss-and-atom.html
And a +1 from Sam Ruby
http://www.intertwingly.net/blog/2006/05/25/Pick-ONE
Fair enough. If others on the list agree then let's just force people
to pick one.
And yes, I was thinking more about auto discovery links than hard links
on the page. With autodiscovery i don't see any reason not to include
both feed types.
-- Allen
- Dave
