[wp-hackers] Two new, long-overdue plugins to make your wordpress life a little easier...

[Dan Smart]

+1

(thanks for writing that, especially regarding staging/test sites. I can't imagine I could trust any of my clients to touch a hosts file, even if it's easy for techies to do.) 

Seriously - most of my clients can't understand why I have to do a load of work to move from staging to production, when their experience of other CMS systems leads them to think it should be a 5 min job, and to be fair, most of the reasons for full URLs are from a single perspective. I love WordPress, but this is one of those things that I regularly have to battle against, rather than it just working for me and my clients' sites.

Dan

On 28 Oct 2011, at 19:32, Robert Lusby <nanogwp at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 28/10/2011 17:44, Otto wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 27, 2011 at 8:45 PM, Marcus Pope<Marcus.Pope at springbox.com>  wrote:
>>> Blown away by the dozens of posts from Core WP developers that root relative urls are not possible
>> A fully qualified URL works every time, everywhere. It's easily parsed
>> by search engines. It works in feed readers. It works no matter where
>> your content is displayed.
>> 
>> You most certainly *can* use relative URLs. You just *shouldn't*.
>> 
>> -Otto
>> _______________________________________________
>> wp-hackers mailing list
>> wp-hackers at lists.automattic.com
>> http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-hackers
> 
> I disagree on a number of points - once again.
> 
> While writing this I've just seen "because you might write a book" listed as a reason for not changing. Seriously?
> 
> Relative URL's change. Sites change domain. Your entire DB is then out of date.
> 
> Also - access on different platforms can often end up using different URL's - if I want my content avaiable in my native iOS application, I have to "strip out" the URLs, and replace them with ones that keep the user within my native application (rather than the web browser).
> 
> Although I feel "because you might write a book", is the poorest reason ever, what if I want my book readers to have access to a local version of the website (.co.uk VS .com) etc ...?
> 
> As stressed many times before - relative URL's *don't* break things for anyone.
> 
> If need-be: I'd love for this feature to go to a vote - and be decided that way.
> 
> I beg of the core team to re-think this - the DB overhead that's added on our enterprise sites.....
> 
> Otto - how do you show clients your test site? I'm sorry but you can't call that staging method wrong. Working with a big blue-chip, approval often has to be acheived from a number of different teams/companies, before part of a website can go live - WITHOUT STOPPING THEIR ACCESS to the current live site. Do you want me to go round and change the DNS/Host files for *all* of these users in often 4/5 different companies? If so - then please also explain how do they access the current live site?
> 
> DB changes are the only way - yes it can be automated. But why should it be. Just because you might write a book?
> 
> Rob
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> wp-hackers mailing list
> wp-hackers at lists.automattic.com
> http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-hackers