Timeline for How to: CRUD for custom post types in the front end?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 31, 2011 at 19:26 | comment | added | rexposadas | @MikeSchinkel: So, is there a simple way to perform CRUD in the front end for a custom post type? Reading from the conversation above, you found a faster way of doing this without resorting to custom tables like what PODS uses. | |
| Jan 31, 2011 at 3:39 | comment | added | Peter Rowell | @MikeSchinkel: Always interested in an opportunity. | |
| Jan 31, 2011 at 2:37 | comment | added | MikeSchinkel | @Peter Rowell - Agreed, and again, very glad to have you here! I know what you mean. WordPress is becoming the "plug-and-play" solution for businesses who need a standard website. Yes, I saw your age on your profile; you can see my age on mine. :) BTW, if you are interested in doing hard core engineering but on WordPress, we might have an opportunity for that later in the year. As they used to say in TV, "Stay tuned..." :) | |
| Jan 31, 2011 at 1:56 | comment | added | Peter Rowell | @MikeSchinkel - I wasn't so much advocating for Django as explaining where I was coming from in terms of my expectations. The reason I am here at all is that it's getting harder to find websites that need $20,000-$40,000 worth of engineering work that are willing to deal with a solo contractor. WordPress, regardless of its faults, represents an ecosystem that is probably 500-1,000 times larger than Django's. There are parts of the WP architecture that are much more inviting than Django (and parts that aren't). FWIW, I'm 61 and have been hacking for 38 years this month. AKA, a Geezer Geek:-) | |
| Jan 31, 2011 at 1:16 | comment | added | MikeSchinkel | @Peter Rowell - Also you are the first advocate for another platform that I think I've seen answering questions here. Yes, Django is awesome but WordPress has it's strengths too. We are trying to build a community based on the positive so please cut our WordPress some slack when it's not perfect. It has definite strengths in areas Django is weaker (minimally such as # of available plugins and themes) and my guess is you may come to even appreciate some of those things that turned you off at first, like I have. :) | |
| Jan 31, 2011 at 1:12 | comment | added | MikeSchinkel | @Peter Rowell - Nice to have you here; finally, someone older than me! :) I think you'll find that performance wise it is slower, but that the sites where it matters that it's slower is a small subset of total sites. Frankly what I would like to see is the ability to start with WordPress' meta approach but transition seamlessly to Pods when it's needed. I'm actually working on a project where that might be viable. BTW, I envy you being about to work in Python, my 2nd favorite language (PHP is 3rd, or worse in my book) but my life path just hasn't taken me there. | |
| Jan 30, 2011 at 17:44 | comment | added | Peter Rowell | @MikeSchinkel - I'll confess to not having done any specific performance testing of one method versus the other. I think my major complaint is that using the meta tables doesn't fit the way my (admittedly aging) brain works and there is zero syntactic sugar to keep me from rubbing my face in it. I have a project coming up for a large, private collection of lute music (yes, really) and if I have time I'll try doing and A-B comparison of the two in terms of performance. | |
| Jan 30, 2011 at 0:13 | comment | added | MikeSchinkel | @Peter Rowell - I came to WordPress from Drupal which inspired Pods; prior to that with ~15 years of relational database design experience. At first I saw WordPress' approach as a negative but after working with it for two years I've come to prefer it in most cases. The reality is it just works better most of the time. Yes, it is not as elegant nor is it as performant or robust for well-defined scenarios but like a dynamic languages vs. statically-typed languages it's more flexible and easier to implement on an ad-hoc basis and that frequently that trumps the more structured alternative. | |
| Jan 27, 2011 at 18:59 | comment | added | rexposadas | Thank you for the answer. This pointed me to the right direction. | |
| Jan 27, 2011 at 18:58 | vote | accept | rexposadas | ||
| Jan 27, 2011 at 18:58 | vote | accept | rexposadas | ||
| Jan 27, 2011 at 18:58 | |||||
| Jan 26, 2011 at 20:31 | history | edited | Peter Rowell | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
Update
|
| Jan 26, 2011 at 20:25 | history | edited | Peter Rowell | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
Updated to respond to comments
|
| Jan 26, 2011 at 18:19 | comment | added | rexposadas | This is a really good find. I'll definitely give it a test run and get back to you. Custom Post Types does not allow for relational mapping? That might be a deal breaker for me. | |
| Jan 26, 2011 at 5:33 | history | edited | Peter Rowell | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
fix typos
|
| Jan 26, 2011 at 4:58 | history | answered | Peter Rowell | CC BY-SA 2.5 |