23Jan/02Off
Blogger Title field
Just read that Blogger Pro will have a Title (Subject) field. Finally! Hopefully this will be added to the Blogger API and Conversant (and Radio) will adopt that field for Blogger API posts.
If that ever happens, I'll consider posting to my weblog(s) via Blogger API, probably using Radio. Until then, I think it's a showstopper and the Blogger API bridge to Conversant (through Radio or any client) is a no-go for me.
About Jim Roepcke
No description. Please complete your profile.Roepcke Computing Solutions
Archive Calendar
Blogroll
Saved Searches
- WebObjects on Twitter Tweets about WebObjects (without all the iTunes store tweet spam)
Willing to Fail
WebObjects book
Badges
Recent tweets
- the #riak team is bold to put comparisons with similar systems on their wiki. they're inviting criticism but it's important to discuss this. 14 hrs ago
- @kazempour http://bit.ly/9KOnBp enjoy :) 2 days ago
- i just swapped the name and description around on my blog, it's now "Jim Roepcke's weblog" instead of "have browser, will travel". 4 days ago
- More updates...
January 23rd, 2002 - 09:08
>
>If that ever happens, I’ll consider posting to my weblog(s) via
>Blogger API, probably using Radio. Until then, I think it’s a
>showstopper and the Blogger API bridge to Conversant (through Radio
>or any client) is a no-go for me.
Jim, I’m sure someone will correct me if I am wrong, but
RadioConversant doesn’t have these limitations, I don’t think. I’m
going to try it out, after I’ve become a little more comfortable with
Radio.
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
January 23rd, 2002 - 09:28
Mark,
Radio Conversant does not have those limitations, true – if you want to
). You have to specify a “default title” in Conversant’s prefs
post from an outline (yay!). If you want to use Radio’s web interface to
manage/post-to a Conversant weblog, then the limitation is there – it’s
actually on the Conversant side (well, ultimately it’s the API’s
fault
for your weblog.
–Steve
On Wednesday, January 23, 2002, at 10:08 AM, Mark Morgan wrote:
>>
>> If that ever happens, I’ll consider posting to my weblog(s) via
>> Blogger API, probably using Radio. Until then, I think it’s a
>> showstopper and the Blogger API bridge to Conversant (through Radio
>> or any client) is a no-go for me.
>
>
> Jim, I’m sure someone will correct me if I am wrong, but
> RadioConversant doesn’t have these limitations, I don’t think. I’m
> going to try it out, after I’ve become a little more comfortable with
> Radio.
>
>
> _________________________________________________________
>
> Do You Yahoo!?
>
> Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
>
>
>
January 23rd, 2002 - 09:31
Mark, you’re right that RC doesn’t have this restriction but it isn’t integrated into the Radio 8 workflow as seamlessly as the MBB. I did some tentative experimentation – hacking MBB to route via the RC API – but that’s on the back burner for the moment.
Of course, IIRC, Radio 8 does not have ‘Subject’ as a concept which is why I don’t think we’ll see much further development of MBB for now.
Duncan
January 23rd, 2002 - 11:13
Thanks, Steve. Then I’m with Jim–I hope that Evan adds the title
field to the Blogger API. But I’m very excited to see what Radio and
RadioConversant can do–hopefully before my 30 days run out, so I can
decide if I really want to cough up $40 US for the thing.
I see on the support site that Seth is threatening to formally
support Radio. Cool!
>Mark,
). You have to specify a “default title” in Conversant’s prefs
>
>Radio Conversant does not have those limitations, true – if you want to
>post from an outline (yay!). If you want to use Radio’s web interface to
>manage/post-to a Conversant weblog, then the limitation is there – it’s
>actually on the Conversant side (well, ultimately it’s the API’s
>fault
>for your weblog.
>
>–Steve
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
January 23rd, 2002 - 11:36
Mark,
On Wednesday, January 23, 2002, at 12:13 PM, Mark Morgan wrote:
> I see on the support site that Seth is threatening to formally
> support Radio. Cool!
Yeah, this is great. It was interesting – I just was mailing Seth, and
explained to him something I noticed. I hope Seth won’t mind if I
excerpt it here:
“…I’ve enjoyed hacking on RC, and my only fear [ed. - irrationally] I
think is of getting my changes stomped on in a root update. Also, I’ve
(as have many others) been burned by Userland’s track record with
Frontier, Radio, etc. – so seeing RC become “officially supported”
portends my changes getting stomped, and new features *not* getting
implemented quickly. PLEASE understand that I do *not* accuse Macrobyte
of these things. This is purely an emotional reaction based on my only
past experience with “supported” Frontier-based software.”
It pisses me off that my experience with Userland is affecting my
feelings on this issue — Macrobyte have ALWAYS been responsive,
intelligent, polite, and kick-ass developers for the life of my
relationship with them, and I have NO doubts that RC is in good hands. I
just noticed my gut response and thought I’d talk about it.
January 23rd, 2002 - 11:45
On Wednesday, January 23, 2002, at 11:36 AM, Steve Ivy
wrote:
> Yeah, this is great. It was interesting – I just was mailing Seth, and
> explained to him something I noticed. I hope Seth won’t mind if I
> excerpt it here:
>
> “…I’ve enjoyed hacking on RC, and my only fear [ed. - irrationally] I
> think is of getting my changes stomped on in a root update. Also, I’ve
> (as have many others) been burned by Userland’s track record with
> Frontier, Radio, etc. – so seeing RC become “officially supported”
> portends my changes getting stomped, and new features *not* getting
> implemented quickly. PLEASE understand that I do *not* accuse Macrobyte
> of these things. This is purely an emotional reaction based on my only
> past experience with “supported” Frontier-based software.”
>
> It pisses me off that my experience with Userland is affecting my
> feelings on this issue — Macrobyte have ALWAYS been responsive,
> intelligent, polite, and kick-ass developers for the life of my
> relationship with them, and I have NO doubts that RC is in good hands. I
> just noticed my gut response and thought I’d talk about it.
Then I recommend you submit your changes to Macrobyte for inclusion into
RC. Otherwise, ask for all the callbacks you need to add the
functionality without changing the scripts in the tool… (sound
familiar?)
And make a backup.
Jim
January 23rd, 2002 - 16:08
Re: Blogger Title field>It pisses me off that my experience with Userland is
affecting my
>feelings on this issue — Macrobyte have ALWAYS been responsive,
>intelligent, polite, and kick-ass developers for the life of my
>relationship with them, and I have NO doubts that RC is in good hands. I
>just noticed my gut response and thought I’d talk about it.
I’ll second that. I’ve found the FC support to be excellent and not just in
comparison. A lot of companies would do well do handle things like
Macrobyte.
At the same time there is that tainted smell that leaks into it from it’s
origins. Were that FC not running on a particular engine I’d be a lot more
interested in using it. But that’s just my opinion.
What Macrobyte has managed to do with FC is incredible!
-Bill Kearney
January 23rd, 2002 - 11:53
Jim,
I trust everything will work out. I’m not that worried – once RC is
being supported, I’ll probably just make feature requests. If it’s
something I’ve already built, that will just make it easier to make a
detailed feature request.
This is an instance where I eflt it was my reaction that was at issue,
not the details of working with a vendor on the tool.
On Wednesday, January 23, 2002, at 12:45 PM, Jim Roepcke wrote:
> Then I recommend you submit your changes to Macrobyte for inclusion into
> RC. Otherwise, ask for all the callbacks you need to add the
> functionality without changing the scripts in the tool… (sound
> familiar?)
>
> And make a backup.
>
> Jim
January 23rd, 2002 - 14:18
On Wed, 23 Jan 2002 14:53:58 -0500, Steve Ivy wrote:
>This is an instance where I eflt it was my reaction that was at
>issue,
>not the details of working with a vendor on the tool.
I would highly recommend just making your own Radio tool. It can be dependent on RC and make calls into it — but if you want to do custom stuff, it should reside in a different place.
For this exact reason, if I’m not happy w/ the functionality of a Userland script, I don’t modify it — I make my own version in another location and make calls to it…that way I can rely on it’s behavior remaining the same regardless of updates.
g.