[wp-hackers] Idea: Widgets as custom post types
john.wp at onolan.org
Tue Mar 2 21:32:52 UTC 2010
I agree with you in principle, but there comes a point where a naming
convention such as "posts" does not apply to all content in a
"publishing platform" (CMS/whatever).
Surely moving widgets and links all into the wp_posts table would
screw up backwards compatibility just as much as renaming it? (correct
me if I'm wrong on that one, I'm genuinely asking)
On 2 Mar 2010, at 21:29, Justin Shreve wrote:
> Both. Since the introduction of plugins, pages, etc.
> WordPress doesn't just say it's a blogging platform, it says that it
> "*WordPress* is a state-of-the-art publishing platform with a focus on
> aesthetics, web standards, and usability."
> It's a publishing platform. - That means support for other types of
> and not just posts (articles, recipes, whatever). I agree wp_posts
> may be
> confusing but as mentioned I think that is for backwards
> On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 4:25 PM, John O'Nolan <john.wp at onolan.org>
>> I think that maybe the small amount of confusion that's arising
>> here is
>> caused by the naming convention rather than the actual issue of
>> where table
>> content is moved to. "wp_posts" fundamentally suggests that this is
>> a table
>> containing a single type of content, and that type is "posts". If
>> the table
>> is now to be looked at as:
>> "thinking of 'content types' rather than 'post types'." [- Justin]
>> Then I have to say that I think the word "post" is beginning to
>> become just
>> as confusing as the word "node" is in the Drupal world.
>> I Wordpress a blogging platform or a CMS?
>> On 2 Mar 2010, at 21:16, Mike Schinkel wrote:
>> On Mar 2, 2010, at 3:43 PM, Michael Pretty wrote:
>>>> Heck, lets go ahead and put the terms tables into the posts
>>>> table. No
>>>> reason we can't turn the entire database into a nodal system. :)
>>>> 3 tables:
>>> Funny, I suggested as much back on the 14th:
>>> On Mar 2, 2010, at 3:53 PM, Otto wrote:
>>>> Changing Links into Posts does not make sense to me.
>>> Debate it with Matt.
>>> If Links needs to be expanded, then I'd support that. Why can't
>>>> be tagged? It wouldn't be hard to add "link-tag" to the taxonomies.
>>>> Much better solution than shifting a link to a post. How do you
>>>> display a link as a post? Best I can think of would be a
>>>> redirect. ;)
>>> Think in terms of a directory of links. A link can have a recent
>>> screenshot of the link, a description of the link, a title for the
>>> link, a
>>> category in which fits, a set of tags about the link, custom
>>> fields about
>>> the link (i.e. address maybe?) and more. With custom post types
>>> the need
>>> for links go away so all link functionality should be rolled in
>>> for use by
>>> custom post types.
>>> Widgets should be made more generic, yes. But most likely they
>>>> be given their *own* table. Why? Because it's difficult to
>>>> imagine a
>>>> solid case for representing a single widget as a whole post page as
>>> Difficult for you to imagine maybe, but not for me and I'll bet
>>> not for
>>> many others.
>>> A widget page would show what the widget is capable of, show
>>> of it in use, and be linked to taxonomy of types of widgets. So I
>>> have to
>>> disagree with you again, widgets in the posts table makes a lot of
>>> wp-hackers mailing list
>>> wp-hackers at lists.automattic.com
>> wp-hackers mailing list
>> wp-hackers at lists.automattic.com
> wp-hackers mailing list
> wp-hackers at lists.automattic.com
More information about the wp-hackers