Import from arbitrary DW-code site

[adalger]

Title:
Import from arbitrary DW-code site

Area:
importer

Summary:
DW-code sites should be able to import content from each other. This is currently impossible, but could be added as an option to name an arbitrary site and ask the importer to find out whether it can use what it gets from that site.

Description:
As the importer is currently set up, a site can only provide content if it's been hardcoded onto the page as an option. This means any time someone wants to import content from a site using a compatible codebase, they'll need to petition for inclusion of the site. It also means some dev is going to have to submit a patch every time a new site is discovered to be DW-compatible.

I suggest the radio buttons be replaced with a combo box prefilled with known compatible sites, but with the option of typing in an arbitrary site name. The importer would then query the site, determine whether it can parse the content exported by that site, and act accordingly.

Poll #1271 Import from arbitrary DW-code site

Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 39

View Respondents

This suggestion:

View Answers

Should be implemented as-is.
22 (56.4%)

Should be implemented with changes. (please comment)
7 (17.9%)

Shouldn't be implemented.
0 (0.0%)

(I have no opinion)
10 (25.6%)

(Other: please comment)
0 (0.0%)

Comments

[gchick]

Note that I'm voting yes based on no actual knowledge of what this would entail technically -- but in principle, I think it's lovely. As more sites run our code, it's not just that we don't know if we'll have a demand to import site F as well as sites A, B, C, D, E. We don't know if site F will want to import from site Q...

[zarhooie]

This would be a good idea if the site name gets added to a list somewhere that the xposter would check before it did its own checks.

[adalger]

You mean, so we had a database table of "we know these sites are interoperable"?

[zarhooie]

Yeah. Not necessarily an official list (so not in the drop down) but a list of "ok, these ones worked last time" so that the xposter would only need to check if it was a new domain (or maybe once every x-imports, to make sure it still works).

[cesy]

I think you mean importer rather than crossposter, but it would be good to have this feature on both, and this way of implementing it sounds good.

[zarhooie]

Crossposter + Importer = OTP

I get confused sometimes. They're the same thing in my brain!

[syderia]

I agree.

[pauamma]

Hmm, for that to work, the user would have to indicate which API (LiveJournal, Dreamwidth, Wordpress, or whatever else the importer supports now or in the future) the site uses. Also, there should be some sanity-checking (non-destructive) to check that it's the right interface to use for the site. (Otherwise, bad things may happen if, eg, "import all" in Wordpressese actually means "erase all" in MTish.)

Which isn't to say it's unfeasible, just that it needs more safety checks than the current interface, where the user isn't given a loaded gun and a "This way to your foot" sign. :-)

[adalger]

Good points. My particular suggestion is specifically for DW-codebase, meaning the importer, when presented with a fill-in-the-blank option, should ask that site whether it's running DW-base, and if so, what version. If the scope of the suggestion is widened to include any blogging site with an API that supports exporting, then absolutely we should ask the importing user what codebase the site is running first, unless we can code a safe set of checks for the question-series "Are you running {X}?" for each X we can parse.

[denise]

After discussion (http://bugs.dwscoalition.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1876) we've decided to reject this suggestion for now. We might come back to it later and allow for just import of entries from arbitrary sites, but on the whole it opens up too many security issues. Anyone who's running a new site on DW code should contact us and we'll get them in as an import site ASAP!