--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Mojolicious" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to mojolicious...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to mojol...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/mojolicious.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
With the cutesy dates specifically, however, we would probably want to make it I18N-able, which could open up a worm can...
I like it.
But I'm curious what the motivation is to bring it into core? I think we could all think of 1,000 things that our apps do and, starting from scratch, it would be convenient for these things to be built into core.
I would like to see more things that can help me out as a developer to make my application development easier, especially at the prototype stage. The more things the framework can do the less I have to do or glue in from other modules. :) And we all know that laziness is a virtue.
It's nice, I like it; but why isn't it a plugin? Seems to me like the logical choice for it?
In any case, I do very much like and appreciate your consideration of taking Mojolicious to the next level beyond the essentials and into the best practices. It seems to me that what you're proposing is to begin building a repository of plugins that are approved by the core team. The current plugins now: Android. The plugins that you're proposing: iOS. It might be nice to have a separate name space between the two so users immediately know which they're dealing with and also so that the good names don't get taken from the core team.
I've always been secretly hoping that one day Mojolicious would do more than essentials framework. I would love if it would do more and more things for me. It already does just about everything, why not let it do literally everything? :)
--
...Google Groups...
Something like this:<span data-timestamp="<%= time %>" class="timestamp><%= pretty_absolute_time %></span>
Stefan: That is indeed a Mojolicious template. What I meant is that I want to provide a pretty absolute time (not like the ironman webpage) and then I replace that on the client side with whatever "data-timestamp" holds. time() = something computers (javascript) can understand and pretty_absolute_time() is something humans can read.Another thing is that pretty_absolute_time() makes also more sense if you plan to print the webpage. Therefor I wouldn't replace the <span> tag, but rather hide it by default on "media screen" and show it on "media print".
On Aug 28, 2014 9:50 AM, "Jan Henning Thorsen" <jan.h...@thorsen.pm> wrote:
>
> The big difference is that I got pretty ABSOLUTE time as a fallback, while https://github.com/kraih/mojo/compare/time_in_words is used to create pretty RELATIVE time.
I understand the focus of your distinction now. "5:00 pm" versus "5 minutes ago". Yes?
Perhaps I missed it sri, I was curious what your motivation was for supplying relative time such as "5 minutes ago".
When I initially saw your commit I thought that you were interested in showing some core logging in the debugger that something happened 5 minutes ago or such.
Anyway... Sorry to beat a dead horse. Just curious.
> On Thursday, August 28, 2014 4:46:03 PM UTC+2, Stefan Adams wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 7:58 AM, Jan Henning Thorsen <jan.h...@thorsen.pm> wrote:
>>>
>>> Stefan: That is indeed a Mojolicious template. What I meant is that I want to provide a pretty absolute time (not like the ironman webpage) and then I replace that on the client side with whatever "data-timestamp" holds. time() = something computers (javascript) can understand and pretty_absolute_time() is something humans can read.
>>>
>>> Another thing is that pretty_absolute_time() makes also more sense if you plan to print the webpage. Therefor I wouldn't replace the <span> tag, but rather hide it by default on "media screen" and show it on "media print".
>>
>>
>> Thanks for the response, Jan. I think this makes sense, however, as I understand it you're still calling a Perl function to output pretty time / cutesy dates -- the very function that Sri was proposing and that you were suggesting isn't useful because you like to render it on the client (javascript). But it sounds like you are still rendering cutesy dates on the server. I'm not suggesting that this is sufficient cause to introduce cutesy dates into Mojo core by any means, just trying to keep up with you in the conversation and understand your response and rationale. Sorry for my inability to understand better. :D
>
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to mojolicious+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Perhaps I missed it sri, I was curious what your motivation was for supplying relative time such as "5 minutes ago".