Possibly; I would
be perfectly happy to see the incomplete administration screen just go away and
call the module 'released'. It's a perfectly viable module and API package
without that one screen, and just as stable as image.module, say. Branching is
more of an issue. SysCrusher has continued to work on it, commit patches, and
participate in issue queues over the past several weeks so I think it's more a
question of calling the module 'done' and 'ready,' which it wasn't before 4.7
shipped.
I suppose it's
just frustrating to see people look at an existing module that does 95% of
what's needed, and decide to reimplement from scratch to get the extra 5%. There
are more and more cases of it every day, it seems. Sometimes it's unavoidable
but often it's a real waste.
--Jeff
On 28-Jul-06, at 9:05 AM, Jeff Eaton wrote:
I'm not sure
that's an accurate characterization. SysCrusher hasn't had a chance to work
on the administrative screen for bulk link maint. work, but the module has
been good to go under 4.7 for months now. It has a robust API, very solid
views integration, and is easy to integrate with. The biggest problem is
that 1) its description has an outdated warning, and 2) it hasn't been
officially branched. That latter problem is definitely a big one, but I'd
really suggest anyone considering implementing a links management system
consider links.module and links.inc as their starting
point.
Obviously,
some would prefer a smaller focused all in one solution. :) No problem with
that. But the links package itself is definitely not in
disrepair.
Would neglected be a better word? 1 & 2 as you mention above are
indicators to me that not enough attention is being paid to the bundle (I'm
not trying to diss links, just trying to find out more about future direction
/ viability).
And yes, the other big thing is the does-it-all nature...
-- Boris