[wp-hackers] Relative vs. Absolute URLs stored in db

[Vid Luther]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Is this groundhogs day marathon season?

Can we all go to:
http://lists.automattic.com/pipermail/wp-hackers/2010-November/035959.html

find "WP Development & Production Sites"

and re-read that? it'll save the bandwidth... and stuff.




> Chris Williams December 4, 2010 12:58 PM:
> 
> This horse was quite recently beaten nearly to death in the thread "WP Development & Production Sites"...
> 
> I fear a replay.
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: Ankur Oberoi <aoberoi at gmail.com>
> Reply-To: <wp-hackers at lists.automattic.com>
> Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 13:46:43 -0500
> To: <wp-hackers at lists.automattic.com>
> Subject: [wp-hackers] Relative vs. Absolute URLs stored in db
> 
> It doesn't seem to make sense to me that the absolute URLs are stored in the
> db. Shouldnt those be formed by concatenating the siteurl and/or blog values
> which are already stored in the db.
> 
> The main advantage of this would be that migrating a blog would be MUCH
> simpler and straightforward. This problem is encountered when moving a site,
> but much more of interest to me is when pushing from a dev environment to a
> staging or production environment. Currently I would have
> http://localhost/example as a site url which gets written to many places in
> the database but when I want to push to http://example.com I have to use the
> Search and Replace plugin to try and change all the URL occurrences. I have
> to do this everytime I check my development code out of my version control
> to another system. Seems like a bad hack considering I could be blogging
> about tech and have "localhost" text in the content of a post that i do NOT
> want to replace. I need to perform the operation on the content body because
> media contained in the library is referenced with absolute URLs.
> 
> I just want to open up the discussion because there is possibly a good
> reason to do it the way its done now, or a plan in place to change it, that
> I am not aware of. Is it too expensive to do the concatenation at runtime?
> That's the only benefit I could see from the current method.
> _______________________________________________
> wp-hackers mailing list
> wp-hackers at lists.automattic.com
> http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-hackers
> 
> _______________________________________________
> wp-hackers mailing list
> wp-hackers at lists.automattic.com
> http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-hackers
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Ankur Oberoi December 4, 2010 12:46 PM:
> 
> It doesn't seem to make sense to me that the absolute URLs are stored in the
> db. Shouldnt those be formed by concatenating the siteurl and/or blog values
> which are already stored in the db.
> 
> The main advantage of this would be that migrating a blog would be MUCH
> simpler and straightforward. This problem is encountered when moving a site,
> but much more of interest to me is when pushing from a dev environment to a
> staging or production environment. Currently I would have
> http://localhost/example as a site url which gets written to many places in
> the database but when I want to push to http://example.com I have to use the
> Search and Replace plugin to try and change all the URL occurrences. I have
> to do this everytime I check my development code out of my version control
> to another system. Seems like a bad hack considering I could be blogging
> about tech and have "localhost" text in the content of a post that i do NOT
> want to replace. I need to perform the operation on the content body because
> media contained in the library is referenced with absolute URLs.
> 
> I just want to open up the discussion because there is possibly a good
> reason to do it the way its done now, or a plan in place to change it, that
> I am not aware of. Is it too expensive to do the concatenation at runtime?
> That's the only benefit I could see from the current method.
> _______________________________________________
> wp-hackers mailing list
> wp-hackers at lists.automattic.com
> http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-hackers
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.16 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAkz6j/UACgkQk2/z0szfu9qUtgCeOOKuEfwKAQw+Ewxfz5qio2CJ
0C0An3x3aCphrf6MuPPbpsQmBcQaWwOB
=JuiL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----