On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 1:13 AM, James Ashley <james.ash...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > From the peanut gallery: > > I think this basic idea sounds fabulous. I've been kicking clojure's > tires, and I keep meaning to slap a blog engine together. But then I go > into tailspin because I want to blog about the experience, but my blogs are > down and I don't want to go through setting up WP yet again, and...yeah. > It's been kind of a "This is a fairly interesting project to introduce > yourself to the language, but is it *really* worth doing yourself?" thing > for me. > > For me, the answer (so far) has been "That looks fun, and I'd like to be a > contributor, but I just don't have time to tackle it now...maybe next > weekend." > > So, anyway, before I disagree below, I'll add a basic +1. (For whatever my > lurker n00b opinion might be worth). Too right. I get this way too. > On Friday, July 19, 2013 2:53:30 PM UTC-5, frye wrote: > >> My spidey sense is that the proposed data types (posts, assets, tags, >> comments too ?), will have to be handled differently. >> >> What I plan to do though, is go through some basic workflow cases, and >> work out the best data relationships. That's the point at which I think >> common data types could be unified. Plus, a function, like export, could >> also be a URL. So I wouldn't want to tie core resources to the concept of >> Http URLs. Even though they may map neatly to stefon's actions. Thoughts ? >> > > Isn't that basically the point to a URL? > Especially when you consider the basic REST principles? *Someone* will > want a RESTful blog eventually. Even if that's "just" a plugin, keeping > those ideas in mind from the beginning seems like a wise practice. I > haven't worked on a project yet where anyone ever wished that we hadn't > invested in that up front. Though it's been far more common that we didn't, > so it's mostly been a matter of trying to deal with the pain of replicating > it later. > > I don't actually have a clue what you have in mind for stefon's actions. > So maybe I'm actually agreeing with you. > > I apologize if this isn't coherent...it's been a long, brutal day. I saw > this thread this morning, and this is the first chance I've had to respond > (after I'm totally exhausted). > So wrt the core domain models and CRUD+ library functions. I want that to be something that a user can load up in her repl, and start adding and manipulating content. Wrapped around that will be the core service layer, with an identifier very much resembling a resource. That's what I'm imagining the plug-in layer would expose. Plugged into that core service, could be a Web UI component, who's RESTful locations should map neatly to the actions / locations / whatever, that the core service exposes. So for that core service, I'll probably be taking cues from REST as an architectural style. > Regards, > James > Cheers Tim :) -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
