none
WLW Not retrieving publish date from existing post

    Question

  • Hi - we're using Live Writer as a content management system for our website at http://www.labs.jobserve.com (it's loosely a blog, so it made sense as the WYSIWYG and plugin features of Live Writer rock); and have coded an WCF-implemented XML Rpc backend for our blog service.

    We've implemented it as the metaweblog service.  Everything works beautifully: post as draft, publishing (setting explicit publish date, or using default), deleting, updating, media uploads etc - it's all brilliant.

    However, when retrieving a published post back from the server, the publish date does not get set.  I've used Fiddler to examine that both the date_published and date_published_gmt values are being passed back correctly in the XML payload, and they are, so I can only assume that WLW is simply not reading the date into the publish date box.

    I've also got a personal BlogEngine.Net site, and it appears that the publish dates don't get retrieved for that either.

    Is there a workaround for this, is it by design, or is it a bug.

    From my point of view, being able to open a previously published post to correct an error and re-post it as the same date (without having to remember what that was!) shoudl be regarded as a workflow that's essential to be able to support.

    As an aside, the process of developing a blog service interface to our content management database that is directed at live writer, using one of it's known service types, has been really easy.  As a desktop app to test against it's really simple - and in nearly every case it 'just works'.

    Congrats on a great app - although bloody annoying that there's no native installer for windows 2003 x64 grrrr...
    Friday, July 3, 2009 8:18 AM

Answers

  • Hi LZ,

    Great question. This is actually by design, due to the complete lack of timezone handling in the XML-RPC/MetaWeblog specs we didn't have a reliable way to roundtrip dates. To be safe, we try not to send a date at all except when the user checks the publish date box. It's great that you're using date_published_gmt, if that was part of the spec from the beginning we might not have ended up here.

    What this means for you as a server implementer is that when editPost gets called with no date value, just leave the existing date alone. That's how the re-posting workflow is supposed to work.

    Hope that helps and let us know if you have more questions!

    • Marked as answer by Lord Zoltan Wednesday, July 8, 2009 8:05 AM
    Tuesday, July 7, 2009 5:20 PM
    Owner

All replies

  • Hi LZ,

    Great question. This is actually by design, due to the complete lack of timezone handling in the XML-RPC/MetaWeblog specs we didn't have a reliable way to roundtrip dates. To be safe, we try not to send a date at all except when the user checks the publish date box. It's great that you're using date_published_gmt, if that was part of the spec from the beginning we might not have ended up here.

    What this means for you as a server implementer is that when editPost gets called with no date value, just leave the existing date alone. That's how the re-posting workflow is supposed to work.

    Hope that helps and let us know if you have more questions!

    • Marked as answer by Lord Zoltan Wednesday, July 8, 2009 8:05 AM
    Tuesday, July 7, 2009 5:20 PM
    Owner
  • Hi Joe,

    That's a great answer, thanks - and makes perfect sense.  I actually included the date_created_gmt field in my server-side types because I saw it was getting passed from WLW, and am subsequently using that field instead since we might have contributors posting to the site from all around the world - so thanks to you guys for including that.

    We're going to be writing some info up on the site about how we've gone about creating whole content management system and enabled it to work with WLW, as I believe that WLW is a great path to follow if you need article and page-based (we did plugin into the parent/child page interface as well, but decided that our site didn't actually require it) CMS for your website.

    Many thanks - and keep up the good work!

    Andras
    Wednesday, July 8, 2009 8:41 AM
  • Andras--

    Very cool, looking forward to reading your write-up!
    Thursday, July 9, 2009 5:03 PM
    Owner
  • Wow, really awesome! Looks like you guys really did your homework. I think you're the first server ever to bother to provide WebLayout and WebPreview views.

    Kudos to you guys!
    Saturday, July 11, 2009 4:51 PM
    Owner
  • Thanks Joe

    We're really pleased with the outcome - and hopefully now other people can follow in our footsteps.

    I know this is in danger of becoming the mutual appreciation society thread(!) - but as a final note, I personally feel that the kudos must go to the WLW team for putting so much thought into the product - and the documentation is spot-on, so it only took me a couple of weeks to get the WLW integration up and running.

    Can't wait to see what's in the next version, if there's going to be one!
    Saturday, July 11, 2009 9:12 PM
  • I noticed the same problem too.

    Thanks a lot for WLW, though -- I'm using it for a website the same way Andras is, and I really appreciate how flexible and usable it is.

    Saturday, July 31, 2010 9:33 PM