With plugin manager in core, it should not be necessary to bundle views with core. It will be a simple matter of selecting the module for installation, after which plugin manager will download the module, install and enable it for you.

I think the argument of 'let's put views in core because it'll make setting up sites easier' is kind of a bad one in this case. Views is neither easy nor essential for -every- site out there.
-----
Cameron Eagans
Owner, Black Storms Studios, LLC
http://www.blackstormsstudios.com


On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 11:15 PM, T L <tloud365@gmail.com> wrote:
+1 for views in core d8.

It's a pretty useful module, and I'm guessing most of us use it in the vast majority of our sites.  wrt code flexibility, I think it's a fair trade off for lowering another barrier to entry for new users.  It's one less blog/forum/module search a new user has to read/do in order to get/understand/use what again I'd guess most drupal sites consider standard/necessary.

Just my thoughts though.

Cheers,
tim


On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Earl Dunovant <prometheus6@gmail.com> wrote:
Views is an query builder, and there's going to be an query builder in
D7...couldn't views pretty much work out to a consistent UI for that?

On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 11:56 AM, Naheem Zaffar<naheemzaffar@gmail.com> wrote:
> Talking as someone who has not used views extensively, has views really
> changed that greatly within versions?
>
> Going by the numbers alone, Views 1.x was for Drupal 5, Views 2.x is for
> Drupal 6. Maybe I am wrong but I would assume that the changes from 2.0 to
> 2.5 the current release do not impact on the underlying infrastructure all
> that much?
>
> And this is with a "freak" core lifecycle of two years which I assume will
> not remain the norm.
>
> 2009/8/10 Cameron Eagans
>>
>> Why would you want views in core?
>>
>> You put views in core and it is frozen. Nobody can do anything with it (as
>> far as changing it: adding new features, reworking existing code, etc). As a
>> contrib module, the Views maintainers can decide how they want to run the
>> release process for Views, and I personally would like to keep it that way
>> -- it allows for a LOT more flexibility and a much faster development
>> lifecycle.
>>
>> Plus, core is already weighing in at around 9.5 MB. Adding another 4.5 MB
>> of code to maintain doesn't seem like a good idea to me.
>



--
Tim Loudon
t: 781.686.6096