Re: Continued development?

[Tom Parker <palfrey tevp net>]

Jon Phillips wrote:
> I think we should do this. Wait until the end of the week for a reply by
> any admins. If we get no reply, then consider other options to get code
> changes in.
>
> Drivel is pretty cool, but is no good to me without the category/tagging
> support.

AFAIK, Todd was working on some form of rewrite of some of the core. 
I've got some code (see ugly stuff at 
http://code.google.com/p/libwalledgarden/) that was working towards 
support for blogging systems without public APIs (MySpace et al) with a 
primary target of working with Drivel, and I was kinda putting off 
further work until the rewrite kicks in.

If the end decision is that a friendly takeover/fork is necessary in 
order to actually get some ongoing drivel development, then an early 
order of business should probably be a review of the current internal 
structure, and a debate about whether it needs refactoring.

For example, the libwalledgarden stuff worked by providing a plugin 
system (as a nasty hack) to Drivel for different protocols, but that 
could be expanded into the main core to build a per-protocol plugin 
system instead.

Just my 2 eurocents,

Tom Parker
--
palfrey tevp net - http://tevp.net
Illegitimus non carborundum