[wp-hackers] GSoC 2011

[Thomas Van Eyck]

scribu <mail <at> scribu.net> writes:

> 
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 9:12 PM, Thomas Van Eyck
> <thomas.vaneyck <at> gmail.com>wrote:
> 
> > As far as the media idea goes, I don't think the WP core needs more gallery
> > features and stuff like that, at least not now. I think a stronger backend
> > is
> > needed, providing a very strong foundation to build some management
> > functionality on. This is all that should be added to the core. The current
> > frontend features such as galleries could be kept for now. Any other
> > features
> > could then be implemented using plugins.
> >
> 
> Completely agree.
> 
> To clarify this a little bit. I see one central storage point in the WP core
> > for
> > all media. This would for instance mean a basic table in the DB, with a
> > record
> > for each media item. The files would still be stored on disk, although sub
> > folders should best be supported to keep things manageable. Using a table
> > like
> > that, would mean that files can be moved around without breaking things
> > higher
> > up. Some form of taxonomization should be supported, be it using
> > categories,
> > tags, posts, etc. This would than allow, together with some extra meta
> > data, to
> > provide more enhanced searching, filtering and sorting in the Admin area.
> >
> 
> This is already the case: each file has a record in the wp_posts table, with
> the 'attachment' post type.
> 
> You should do your homework better next time. ;)
> 

Well I never said there wasn't any table in the current implementation :-) 
Besides that table is depending on what you expect in the feature part of the 
problem, at least from a database design point of view. 

For starters, there is a lot more to say about a media file than just what the 
table says now, and no point in filtering/sorting metadata that isn't there to 
begin with. Even with the wp_postmeta table, it looks even more forced in. I 
assume the entire media support was added this way to benefit from the comments 
support throughout the rest of the code. Furthermore, the other mentioned 
features are missing or incomplete. The DB part is one thing, the API to manage 
it is another.