On Feb 1, 2007, at 1:29 PM, Rowan Kerr wrote:
On 1-Feb-07, at 1:43 PM, Gerhard Killesreiter wrote:
Maybe it would make sense to let user profiles be cck nodes instead. That would avoid a lot of code duplication.

That's why I was asking. :) I think CCK makes a lot of sense for profile fields in the long run. Will CCK be in D6 core though?

I recently upgraded jjeff's excellent bio module and added this capability.  What it does is allow the use of any content type as something that represents a profile, supplying its own content type by default.  The default node type is just a node.module-supplied title+body nodetype.  It takes very little code to do this, and could handily obviate profiles.

Now, the one thing you give up is the per-field permission settings (which were a little crufty anyway IMO).  I'd be an advocate of trying to re-introduce this type of access on a node level instead.  The challenge, of course, is that there's no consistent mechanism for seeing which fields are on a node and where they came from (cck? nodeapi? its own module?).  If this issue can be addressed then it would be trivially easy to use nodes as profiles (well, easy except for the endless debating)

I think Jeff's original intent was to keep user/profile presentation separate from bio presentations, but profiles-as-nodes is just too handy to give up!

Allie Micka
pajunas interactive, inc.
http://www.pajunas.com

scalable web hosting and open source strategies