Considering the maintenance of this is at minimum typing "drush features-update foo" and at maximum copying/pasting some code, it seems relatively minor. Views export/import expects these parameters, so I don't recommend changing them.

Specific questions/issues like this are better suited for the Views issue queue, but I don't think this particular question has much traction. It's not a bug, nor affects performance (especially not with an opcode cache). It's a question of personal preference and semantics, some of which you may have to abandon when leveraging Drupal. ;)


On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 9:54 AM, Sean Dague <sean@dague.net> wrote:
For instance, I find large duplication of:

       'alter' => array(
         'alter_text' => 0,
         'text' => '',
         'make_link' => 0,
         'path' => '',
         'link_class' => '',
         'alt' => '',
         'prefix' => '',
         'suffix' => '',
         'target' => '',
         'help' => '',
         'trim' => 0,
         'max_length' => '',
         'word_boundary' => 1,
         'ellipsis' => 1,
         'html' => 0,
         'strip_tags' => 0,
       ),

all throughout the export to be not conducive to maintainability (there are 12 instances of that stanza, 9 are exactly the same, and the other 3 only vary in their 'text' field).

I find that level of duplication somewhat problematic, and something I like to avoid.

       -Sean


On 03/18/2011 09:31 AM, Carl Wiedemann wrote:
Not quite sure I understand what exactly is non-maintainable?

You may also investigate http://drupal.org/project/features for
assistance with exporting Views to code.


On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 7:45 AM, Sean Dague <sean@dague.net
<mailto:sean@dague.net>> wrote:

   I'm working on a new drupal 6.x module (currently in sandbox
   awaiting review - http://drupal.org/sandbox/sdague/1072704) which
   exports it's data via views.  When I implemented
   hook_views_default_views() I just used the export functionality on
   views for a few basic views to get things started.

   That works, but those are both very verbose, and don't implement any
   i18n. Is there a standard way of trimming down the default values in
   those views so this becomes a bit more sane and maintainable?

   Advice would be appreciated,

           -Sean

   --

   Sean Dague                       Learn about the Universe with the
   sean at dague dot net          Mid-Hudson Astronomical Association
   http://dague.net http://midhudsonastro.org




--

Sean Dague                       Learn about the Universe with the
sean at dague dot net          Mid-Hudson Astronomical Association
http://dague.net                         http://midhudsonastro.org