[geeklog-devel] GSoC 2010 is on

[Tom]

I see benefits to both sides of the argument, but to be honest I feel that
security is a responsibility of Geeklog. 

> The core should be there to provide services for plugins.

I think this statement sums it up well.

We pride ourselves on Geeklog's security and on it being secure (so much so
it may become part of the slogan). It makes more sense to me, to include the
basics of this in Geeklog than to let a plugin handle it. 

As far as the rest of the social networking functionality, it should be
handled by plugins.

In regards to my Facebook Connect idea, I would hate to see
COM_facebookLogin in lib-common as well. Geeklog sites used by businesses
would never need something like this. I haven't really looking into how
Openid was implemented but I assumed Facebook Connect would be done in a
similar manner. Maybe this process needs to be changed?  I don't know as I
haven't done any real research yet on how Facebook Connect is implemented
and how Geeklog handles its different login procedures.

I guess I have some reading to do ... :-)

Tom


-----Original Message-----
From: geeklog-devel-bounces at lists.geeklog.net
[mailto:geeklog-devel-bounces at lists.geeklog.net] On Behalf Of Randy Kolenko
Sent: February-17-10 7:47 AM
To: Geeklog Development
Subject: Re: [geeklog-devel] GSoC 2010 is on

> I would offer to write the patch but I don't have a good track record
> with getting my patches accepted into core.

This statement is exactly why I propose to make this a plugin.  
The plugin can be maintained outside of core, freeing the author and
contributors from the shackles of having to jam through unnecessary
changes into the base code.

The socnet plugin would then have a life of its own with a release cycle
that matches how fast social networking changes rather than matching
GL's release cycle.

The core should be there to provide services for plugins.  The plugins
are what should extend functionality.  Otherwise, why not just bundle
back in static pages, calendar, polls etc.  

Socnet, for now, seems to be "simple" on the surface.  Who knows what is
actually required 6 months from now.. 10 months from now etc.  Each
additive requirement for socnet would mean core code changes.  
2 years from now, I would hate to see functions like "COM_facebookLogin"
and "COM_myspaceDeleteStuff" in lib common.

-randy



_______________________________________________
geeklog-devel mailing list
geeklog-devel at lists.geeklog.net
http://eight.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/geeklog-devel

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 4873 (20100217) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com


 

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 4874 (20100217) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com