Look at django-oembed. A CharField will serve for every (supported) provider.
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 8:17 PM, thornomad <damont...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi - need some suggestions. > > I am trying to put together an app that allows users to submit links > to videos at popular video sharing sites (e.g., youtube, vimeo, etc) > -- the links get submitted, data about the video (title, description, > play count, etc) is collected from the respective site and populates > model fields, and the video entry is queued for review. > > Caveats: I would like to keep the original "synced" data in its own > field and the "approved" data (as edited) in separate field. I > imagine that the data first gets brought into the "edit" field, admin > may make changes and save, but the "originating" data will remain > separate and continue to be updated (synced). > > This means I need at least > > I am stuck, though, on the most appropriate/logical approach to this > app. Some approaches I've considered. > > [1] My first thought is to create base model "Video" (with the main > fields) and then create child models like YoutubeVideo and VimeoVideo > and BlipVideo ... when the user submits a url, would do a regex on it > in the view, and send it through the appropriate child class. I could > then grab the base Video model in my views (not having to distinguish > the type of video) and use a "leaf" technique (eg, > http://www.djangosnippets.org/snippets/1031/) to run the child's > "sync" or "update" command. CONS: seems tacky and not easy to build > on. The leaf technique isn't working when I override the save() > function in leaf models. > > [2] Perhaps create only a single model and then create separate > classes/functions to handle the the syncing of data based on the > URLField data ... so, perhaps when Video.update() is called, it would > run the logic then to see what kind of url it has, and how to update > it. CONS: I thought maybe I could just create a ForeignKey field to a > non-model group of classes with common functions (update, sync, > etc) ... but I am not sure how, or if, I can do that. > > [3] Outsourcing. > > Hope this makes sense and folks have some feedback about how they > might approach this. I would like this to be easily expandable -- for > example, add YouTube and Vimeo support to start, and easily add other > sites without having to "hack" it. > > I know this is a huge question, but am interested in your "Design > Approach" thoughts ... > > Thanks, > Damon > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
