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

Mike Little wordpress at zed1.com
Sun Oct 30 21:06:10 UTC 2011

On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 20:10, Andrew Gray <andrew at graymerica.com> wrote:

> I have had this argument on this list many times and in person with WP
> core people.   I was told to my face, that they would never remove the
> URLs from the content.
> Here are my opinions.
> 1.  Everyone who is against relative URLs is just being obstinate
> because they have defended their position so many times.
That's a sweeping, nearly insulting, statement. People continue to defend
positions they believe in.

> 2.  People who say you just download the DB and change it have never
> worked with a major client or done any enterprise development with
> WP.  Some of my clients DBs are over 4GB.  It is a ton of fun to
> reupload that.   Change the url via SQL breaks all the serialized
> arrays with urls in it.
Also a sweeping statement. Perhaps more accurate might be to say "people
who have not had the problems you have experienced"

I have never had a serialized array break because of the precautions I take.

Here's a serious question: if a live site has grown to have 4GB of content,
why would you ever be uploading it back to live? Even in the circumstances
where I might take a copy of the live site to test something, I cannot
foresee the circumstances under which I would need to then upload that data
back to live.

> 3.  The development > staging > production and review process is on of
> the reasons I have started using Code Ignighter for my bigger
> projects.   I had too many middle of the night deployment issues with
> for my clients that require zero downtime.
Great. Use the best tools that do the job for you. That's what I do.

4. The processor cycle argument is silly.   CPU is so cheap today.

I love wordpress and thank everyone for being helpful on this list,
> but I can not understand why we can't just have the code use the
> SITE_URL and let it be stored in one place.    Make it a config
> value.  If you do not want to use it, you can ignore
"If you do not want to use it, you can ignore" - If there is an option, the
code would have an additional check each and every time it came to output

> The objections are just so weak, I assume it is just pride at this
> point.

More silly statements. Your opinion is simply your opinion. One might say
the reason you don't see the other side of the argument is pride.

Mike Little

More information about the wp-hackers mailing list