User define permalink structure

[tinyau.vampire]

Moved from GCode Issue #303

Reported by tinyau.vampire, Apr 03, 2007

I hope future version of Habari can support user define permalink
structure. As a user of WordPress currently, I hope to retain the
permalink of the posts when I migrate to Habari in the future.

Duplicates: #467

---

Comment 1 by kpishd...@…, Apr 17, 2007

 http://groups.google.com/group/habari-dev/browse_thread/thread/bf21fb65f3a5ecc/936fbb2e9af48195?lnk=gst&q=wordpress+rewrite&rnum=1#936fbb2e9af48195

---

Comment 2 by freakerz, Sep 19, 2007

Is this still a desired feature?

Maybe we could move this to a -dev thread, talk about using rewrite rules to support
more than one permalink? Would that cause some conflicts?

This would probably fall under the "plugin" category.

---

Comment 4 by freakerz, Nov 03, 2007

Should we supply the users with a core feature as described or leave it for a
plugin? (kind of what I did with Route301, add WP permalink support via custom
RewriteRules)

[miklb]

Is this eventually going to be a core feature? I know tinyau has written a plugin now for it, and perhaps it's a bit premature to add, but wondering if there's a consensus.

[Heilemann]

For what it's worth, I designed a interface to manage it here:  http://flickr.com/photos/heilemann/2276813326/in/set-72157603941330603/

[tinyau]

I don't know if this feature should be in core. But for the interface, it should allow user to configure the permalink structure of all content types and its corresponding comment feed as well.

[arthus]

I think it is fine for implementation to be in a plugin, but the core needs some changes to accommodate this.

We should really not be hardcoding the rewrite rules. In order for a system rule to be changed based upon user input, it would have to be saved into the database elsewhere, then run through a filter. Why aren't we storing rules in the database? If it is something which should be customizable (which it should be), it needs to be in the database.

[rickc]

Replying to arthus:

I think it is fine for implementation to be in a plugin, but the core needs some changes to accommodate this.

We should really not be hardcoding the rewrite rules. In order for a system rule to be changed based upon user input, it would have to be saved into the database elsewhere, then run through a filter. Why aren't we storing rules in the database? If it is something which should be customizable (which it should be), it needs to be in the database.

The basic rewrite rules should always be available, so being hard-coded is safer than keeping them in the database where they can be accidently overwritten. Any of them can, however, be overridden by calling filter_rewrite_rules($system_rules).

[michaeltwofish]

Replying to rickc:

Replying to arthus:

We should really not be hardcoding the rewrite rules. In order for a system rule to be changed based upon user input, it would have to be saved into the database elsewhere, then run through a filter. Why aren't we storing rules in the database? If it is something which should be customizable (which it should be), it needs to be in the database.

The basic rewrite rules should always be available, so being hard-coded is safer than keeping them in the database where they can be accidently overwritten. Any of them can, however, be overridden by calling filter_rewrite_rules($system_rules).

Rewrite rules in the database, either inserted directly or through a plugin, also override the built in rules.