On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 7:45 PM, Gour <g...@mail.inet.hr> wrote: > Hi! > > I'm new to Django exploring what can be done with it and I'd like that > blog users could use some of desktop blog clients to publish their posts > to Django-powered blog site, so I did some research about support for > MetaWeblog and Atom PP in DJango which has brought me to the two > tickets: > > http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/226) and > http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/3570. > > Now, I'm curious if someone can explain me why is the ticket for > MetaWeblog API (#226) closed and marked as 'invalid ' with the comment > "Django's not a weblog engine; it's a framework for building content > management systems. It's going to be up to individual authors of blog > packages to support any APIs." while the ticket for adding Atom PP > (#3570)is accepted and being worked on? > > I asked on #django and got the answer that "It's not possible to please > everyone." which is true 'cause I'm not please by that answer :-) and > wonder if there is some deeper (aka: technological) reason behind it > 'cause both protocols seems to be very popular in blog-engines?
In this case, it looks like a combination of factors: 1) The age difference between the two tickets, 2) A Ticket that just hasn't been completely updated to the current triage process, 3) Some background confusion over the difference between Atom PP and the Atom Syndication format. #226 was closed 4 years ago, in the early days of Django. Back then, we didn't have django.contrib, so there wasn't really anywhere for a protocol like MetaWeblog to live. In that context, Jacob's reasoning is sound - While many people use Django to build their blog, there is nothing blog-specific about Django; protocols that are specifically applicable to blogging are better suited to external projects. Also, when Django was a very small and young project, it needed to remain focussed in order to make any progress. Pushing domain-specific protocols outside the project core is a great way to maintain that focus while simultaneously promoting the greater ecosystem around the project. #3570 is only 2 years old. At the time that ticket was opened, we had established django.contrib, so there was somewhere that a protocol implementation like Atom PP could fit. There was some initial confusion over the difference between Atom PP and Atom Syndication, but once that was resolved, the ticket is really pending a decision about whether it is suitable for inclusion in django.contrib. In the absence of a solid implementation that someone is pushing for inclusion into django.contrib, the ticket has gone stale - it hasn't been rejected outright as a bad idea, but it hasn't been formally accepted either. It should probably be marked 'someday/maybe', but again, for historical reasons - that ticket state didn't exist at the time triage was actually happening on the ticket. Regardless - protocols like this can (and, for the most part, should) exist as external projects. James Tauber's approach with django-atompub is exactly the right idea. If you particularly want MetaWeblog support, it doesn't need to live in Django's core. Hunt around to see if anyone else has implemented it, and if they haven't, start a project. In time, if you create a robust implementation and can demonstrate demand for it, it may be considered for inclusion in django.contrib. Until then, it can live happily in the ecosystem without requiring any official blessing from us. Yours, Russ Magee %-) --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group. To post to this group, send email to django-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
