On Tue, 2006-02-21 at 12:55 -0700, Greg Knaddison wrote:
On 2/21/06, Ber Kessels <ber@webschuur.com> wrote:
Pity. I announced on all the MLs, several times that I was working on this. Our code differs rather a lot, so I think we will have two in a few weeks :) the use and methods of mine are shaped after RoR.
I read your descriptions of sympal on ML and your blog and didn't see the module scaffolding as a feature of it - I think it was easy to miss.
Also, I don't see the pity about duplication of efforts on this. AFAIK, Drupal Module generation is a relatively new idea and having multiple implementations of new ideas can be a good thing.
I look forward to testing/using both of these.
Regards, Greg
While I think there is some merit to building a module skeleton generator. I've found over time it is just quicker to write a module ground-up than to go through wizards to create a module skeleton.(You mileage may vary...) To me a more useful end, and I'm not sure if you're thinking in this direction, is using the module skeleton generator as a basis for a real module builder that can convert CCK content types and VIEWS to first class modules, and provide data migration routines. I think cck and views are god sends, but I don't think they are ideal for sites that hope to get hit hard and heavy, where more normalized table structures, and less code abstraction can make a big difference. The again the time and memory used for 20 custom modules(loading and compiling included) may be more than that used by 1 cck module with 20 content type definitions and associated views. .darrel.