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

[Mike Little]

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
content.



> 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
-- 
Mike Little
http://zed1.com/