[wp-hackers] Filter Hooks for Enclosures

[David Chait]

http://comox.textdrive.com/pipermail/wp-hackers/2006-January/004111.html
http://comox.textdrive.com/pipermail/wp-hackers/2006-January/004101.html

There have been multiple calls here (in two threads) to switch over to 
something like FeedCreator for maintaining the various feed formats.  Alex 
presented FeedCreator originally, I gave it a +1, and in a separate thread 
Mark and Kimmo basically both gave it approval as well (Kimmo uses it 
already...).  FC looks like it uses the create-in-php, 
output-in-whatever-format approach.

That should make for easier coding, less maintenance work per-feed, faster 
enhancements.  We might have to 'adopt' the FC project to get it where we 
want, but no need to start from scratch.

-d

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Owen Winkler" <ringmaster at midnightcircus.com>
To: <wp-hackers at lists.automattic.com>
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 9:01 AM
Subject: Re: [wp-hackers] Filter Hooks for Enclosures


| Jamie Talbot wrote:
| > The ticket's just for the head sections of the feeds, but you could add 
a note on the need for other
| > areas of the feeds too.  Feeds were heavily discussed here recently, 
though I'm not sure that any
| > consensus was formed at the end of it.  Are we going to be updating the 
feeds structure and API
| > significantly in 2.1?  Is it worth the effort to work up a patch that 
buffers feed text and then
| > passes it to a filter, or this likely to all change?
|
| Here's an off-the-wall suggestion...
|
| What if we built feeds as PHP objects, fed them through a filter, then
| converted the object to XML?
|
| There are some extant implementations of Object<->XML in PHP, so it
| might not be too difficult a conversion.  Manipulating the feed XML via
| DOM in a plugin would be swell.
|
| Before I continue blathering about this, how much does this idea suck?
|
| Owen