[wp-hackers] Some Left-Field names for Canonical Plugins

[Pete Mall]

I've been working on a Twitter API and Google Data Protocol WordPress Client
Library using WP_Http. It'll take care of the authentication and data
transfer and would be easily extensible. A plugin writer would be able to
use these libraries instead of re-inventing the wheel. If anyone is
interested in contributing to these projects, please reply directly to me.

Cheers!
Pete

On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 10:45 PM, Mike Schinkel
<mikeschinkel at newclarity.net>wrote:

> On Dec 8, 2009, at 1:20 AM, Matt Mullenweg wrote:
> > That's spelled out pretty clearly in the blog post:
> >
> > http://wordpress.org/development/2009/12/canonical-plugins/
>
> Thanks Matt for clarifying some of the details.
>
> So for more clarity can I assume that these plugins may be smaller general
> purpose plugins and not exclusively larger specialty purpose functionality?
>
> (If yes, I will then wonder why they shouldn't just because part of the
> core?)
>
> >> And could some of these canonical plugins offer functionality that is
> only of use to other plugin authors (i.e. a library of routines) instead of
> all of them being only with end-user functionality?
> >
> > A library useful to many plugins should probably be in core, since that's
> what core is for.
>
> From my experience unless core actually uses said functions people don't
> seem to want to include them.  Thus there becomes a sad grey area for shared
> infrastructure functionality that isn't needed by core (let's say a library
> for interfacing Twitter, for example); plugins that need that shared
> functionality all end up reinventing the wheel.  FWIW.
>
> -Mike
>
> On Dec 8, 2009, at 1:20 AM, Matt Mullenweg wrote:
>
> > On 2009-12-07 9:34 PM, Mike Schinkel wrote:
> >> What's the purpose for these canonical plugins?
> >
> > That's spelled out pretty clearly in the blog post:
> >
> > http://wordpress.org/development/2009/12/canonical-plugins/
> >
> >> Also, will these canonical plugins be listed in special place in the
> admin console where there is actually a list of the plugins that can be
> enabled (so they don't have to be so hard to discover?)
> >
> > They'll definitely be featured for folks.
> >
> >> And could some of these canonical plugins offer functionality that is
> only of use to other plugin authors (i.e. a library of routines) instead of
> all of them being only with end-user functionality?
> >
> > A library useful to many plugins should probably be in core, since that's
> what core is for.
> >
> >> How will these canonical plugins be decided upon?
> >
> > Developer and user interest.
> >
> >> Will existing ones be elevated, or will they be all new projects?
> >
> > Probably a mix of both. If an existing author wants to make their plugin
> canonical they'll be a set of standards they can work toward.
> >
> > --
> > Matt Mullenweg
> > http://ma.tt | http://wordpress.org | http://automattic.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > wp-hackers mailing list
> > wp-hackers at lists.automattic.com
> > http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-hackers
>
> _______________________________________________
> wp-hackers mailing list
> wp-hackers at lists.automattic.com
> http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-hackers
>