[drupal-devel] New Archive Archive Module
The current archive module for Drupal is inadequate, plain and simple. You are presented with a simple three-part form with the year, month, and day. You enter the date of the post you are looking for, and hit submit. If you do not happen to know the exact day that a post was made you are out of luck. Another problem with the current archive module is the fact that it uses a form to browse the archive. Because a form is used no feedback about the users current location in the archive is displayed in the url. So it is nearly impossible to link to a specific part of the archives. So my new module had a few features that I really felt were required. * Navigation: a new system for navigating the archives was required. The new system should provide a more granular way for users to browse the archive by date or by node type. * URL Feedback: provides the user with a familiar way to keep track of their position in the archive, and also provides a easy way for people to link to specific areas of the archive. * Filter by Date or Type: the old module just displayed all nodes. I thought it would be better if the user to specify if they wanted to view only blog nodes, or forum nodes, etc. These are the features that are in the demo I am currently using on my site. It is still under development, but if all goes well maybe this will become a part of the Drupal core for the 4.7 release. We will see how it goes. You can read more on my site: http://www.codemonkeyx.net/node/221 View a Demo: http://www.codemonkeyx.net/archive Tell me what you think, and what could be done to make it better.
On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 10:26:25 +0200, CodeMonkeyX <codemonkeyx@gmail.com> wrote:
The current archive module for Drupal is inadequate, plain and simple.
[...]
So my new module had a few features that I really felt were required.
* Navigation: a new system for navigating the archives was required. The new system should provide a more granular way for users to browse the archive by date or by node type.
Likes good. I like the traditional calendar layout, but yours has its merits, too.
* URL Feedback: provides the user with a familiar way to keep track of their position in the archive, and also provides a easy way for people to link to specific areas of the archive.
Nice. I noticed a bug: after viewing one month, the posts don't update after going to another month.
* Filter by Date or Type: the old module just displayed all nodes. I thought it would be better if the user to specify if they wanted to view only blog nodes, or forum nodes, etc.
It might be nice to tie this in with taxonomy, too. [...]
Tell me what you think, and what could be done to make it better.
I'm not sure if you wanted feedback on list. Please let me know if you'd rather take this to your site. -- Tim Altman
* Filter by Date or Type: the old module just displayed all nodes. I thought it would be better if the user to specify if they wanted to view only blog nodes, or forum nodes, etc.
It might be nice to tie this in with taxonomy, too.
On most sites, it might actually be more intuitive to tie this to taxonomy. Unless you are a Drupal administrator, you won't be able to tell the difference between a page and a story -- especially because people tend to use stories in various ways. I'd be careful with node type selectors; depending on the site, it might be vary confusing. -- Dries Buytaert :: http://www.buytaert.net/
* Filter by Date or Type: the old module just displayed all nodes. I thought it would be better if the user to specify if they wanted to view only blog nodes, or forum nodes, etc.
It might be nice to tie this in with taxonomy, too.
On most sites, it might actually be more intuitive to tie this to taxonomy. Unless you are a Drupal administrator, you won't be able to tell the difference between a page and a story -- especially because people tend to use stories in various ways. I'd be careful with node type selectors; depending on the site, it might be vary confusing.
Nice module (looking at the output :), +1 from me on improving it (with basic vocabulary - not full taxonomy - browsig support), and cleaning it up. Goba
OK I had an idea which should not be too complex. I could create an admin page where the site administrator defines custom types to filter the archive. These types are defined by a combination of node types and taxonomy terms. So for example: Type: Technology Blog => node-type = 'blog' AND term = 'technology'. There administrator can then create pretty much any custom type they like for the archive, and the module can build the SQL on the fly without much overhead to speak of. Just an idea right now, but I think I will play with it a bit and see how it goes. On Apr 1, 2005 8:30 AM, Dries Buytaert <dries@buytaert.net> wrote:
* Filter by Date or Type: the old module just displayed all nodes. I thought it would be better if the user to specify if they wanted to view only blog nodes, or forum nodes, etc.
It might be nice to tie this in with taxonomy, too.
On most sites, it might actually be more intuitive to tie this to taxonomy. Unless you are a Drupal administrator, you won't be able to tell the difference between a page and a story -- especially because people tend to use stories in various ways. I'd be careful with node type selectors; depending on the site, it might be vary confusing.
-- Dries Buytaert :: http://www.buytaert.net/
On 04 Apr 2005, at 07:20, CodeMonkeyX wrote:
OK I had an idea which should not be too complex.
I could create an admin page where the site administrator defines custom types to filter the archive. These types are defined by a combination of node types and taxonomy terms. So for example:
Type: Technology Blog => node-type = 'blog' AND term = 'technology'.
There administrator can then create pretty much any custom type they like for the archive, and the module can build the SQL on the fly without much overhead to speak of.
Just an idea right now, but I think I will play with it a bit and see how it goes.
1. Terms are already bind to node types. If I wanted a "technology blog", chances are I already have a vocabulary term that does exactly this. If not, I could achieve this using the existing taxonomy system. IMO, it is not the archive module's task to build an extra layer on top of the taxonomy module. 2. One could create new categories (groupings) which don't exist elsewhere on the site. This could be confusing. 3. There are sites with hundreds of terms. On such sites, it would be tiresome to setup additional bindings. To move this forward, I'd would look at the various taxonomy_* modules in the contributions repository, to see if there is a particular navigation scheme that is worth integrating and that works for all sites. At DrupalCon in Antwerp it was suggested that we could create something like iTunes' browser, in case you are familiar with that. If we go that route, the archive module becomes more of a "browse module" than an "archive module". Interesting stuff, -- Dries Buytaert :: http://www.buytaert.net/
Good points. I think for now I will remove the filter by types feature, and concentrate on getting all the date functionality working well. Then if we think of a good way to intergrate browsing by type or some sort of "smart playlist" functionality then we can add it later. On Apr 3, 2005 11:46 PM, Dries Buytaert <dries@buytaert.net> wrote:
On 04 Apr 2005, at 07:20, CodeMonkeyX wrote:
OK I had an idea which should not be too complex.
I could create an admin page where the site administrator defines custom types to filter the archive. These types are defined by a combination of node types and taxonomy terms. So for example:
Type: Technology Blog => node-type = 'blog' AND term = 'technology'.
There administrator can then create pretty much any custom type they like for the archive, and the module can build the SQL on the fly without much overhead to speak of.
Just an idea right now, but I think I will play with it a bit and see how it goes.
1. Terms are already bind to node types. If I wanted a "technology blog", chances are I already have a vocabulary term that does exactly this. If not, I could achieve this using the existing taxonomy system. IMO, it is not the archive module's task to build an extra layer on top of the taxonomy module.
2. One could create new categories (groupings) which don't exist elsewhere on the site. This could be confusing.
3. There are sites with hundreds of terms. On such sites, it would be tiresome to setup additional bindings.
To move this forward, I'd would look at the various taxonomy_* modules in the contributions repository, to see if there is a particular navigation scheme that is worth integrating and that works for all sites. At DrupalCon in Antwerp it was suggested that we could create something like iTunes' browser, in case you are familiar with that. If we go that route, the archive module becomes more of a "browse module" than an "archive module".
Interesting stuff,
-- Dries Buytaert :: http://www.buytaert.net/
On 1 Apr, 2005, at 2:26, CodeMonkeyX wrote:
These are the features that are in the demo I am currently using on my site. It is still under development, but if all goes well maybe this will become a part of the Drupal core for the 4.7 release. We will see how it goes.
You can read more on my site: http://www.codemonkeyx.net/node/221
View a Demo: http://www.codemonkeyx.net/archive
Tell me what you think, and what could be done to make it better.
I /really/ like this. As it stands, I do not use the archive module, because it is basically useless in most situations. This, though, offers a huge improvement over what we have now...and I could actually use it! :-) A few things: * I see the same bug when switching months as Tim A. * I agree with him that integration with taxonomy would be good. * I also agree with him that the traditional calendar layout is nice. What I would do is leave everything you have done as is, but when a month is selected, display the days in a calendar view rather than just a list. That way a user can navigate more-easily to a specific day (i.e. if they remember something was posted on a Friday). Attached is screenshot of a modified version of your March 2005 page showing what I would like. I mentioned it to the guy in the cube next to me (also a drupaler), and he liked it better also.
On Apr 1, 2005 12:26 AM, CodeMonkeyX <codemonkeyx@gmail.com> wrote:
So my new module had a few features that I really felt were required.
Thanks for picking this up, CodeMonkeyX. Just wanted to add my +1 to having the rather useless archive module removed/replaced ASAP. Any chance of slipping it into 4.6? It feels like nothing has been done with the current archive module in ages. The calendar in a block is the only half-way useful feature. -- Boris Mann http://www.bryght.com
Just wanted to add my +1 to having the rather useless archive module removed/replaced ASAP. Any chance of slipping it into 4.6? It feels like nothing has been done with the current archive module in ages. The calendar in a block is the only half-way useful feature.
-- Boris Mann http://www.bryght.com
I suggest dropping archive from core and letting this new version mature in Contrib for a few months.
Moshe Weitzman wrote:
Just wanted to add my +1 to having the rather useless archive module removed/replaced ASAP. Any chance of slipping it into 4.6? It feels like nothing has been done with the current archive module in ages. The calendar in a block is the only half-way useful feature. -- Boris Mann
I suggest dropping archive from core and letting this new version mature in Contrib for a few months.
That sounds like a good compromise. That way the contrib module can work with 4.6, and even with 4.5, without introducing problems to the release. Thanks for the work on this. Indeed, the archive was so primitive as to be nearly useless. -- Chris Johnson
Tim Altman:
Nice. I noticed a bug: after viewing one month, the posts don't update after going to another month.
That must be a bug with the Drupal cache, because I did not see this at all on my development system, which currently has the cache disabled.
I'm not sure if you wanted feedback on list. Please let me know if you'd rather take this to your site.
I will be checking both, but if you read my message here then you are probably a drupal developer, so it would be nice if you replied here. :) I will save my sites comments to see what general users think if they come across it.
Likes good. I like the traditional calendar layout, but yours has its merits, too.
Each level of the navigation is completely themeable, so you could make the days section a traditional style calender if you wanted too. For the default view though I would like to try and keep the markup relatively simple. And a list seems like the simplest way right now.
It might be nice to tie this in with taxonomy, too.
Dries:
On most sites, it might actually be more intuitive to tie this to taxonomy. Unless you are a Drupal administrator, you won't be able to tell the difference between a page and a story -- especially because people tend to use stories in various ways. I'd be careful with node type selectors; depending on the site, it might be vary confusing.
I agree that's a problem with the current version. Right now I just wanted that there to see how it worked. What might be nice would be let the site admin determine a custom set of "types" to put there. They could then add links for node types, comments, or to taxonomy terms. I must say though, I am not sure how well this would integrate with the a taxonomy navigation system as well. Like I said above maybe we could allow the admin to create custom type filters which could include taxonomy terms? Also, I was thinking it might be nice to provide an archive hook of some type to allow module developers to hook into the archive module and create their own sub-archives. I am not sure how this would be implemented yet, but I was throwing around the idea. Jim Riggs:
I /really/ like this. As it stands, I do not use the archive module, because it is basically useless in most situations. This, though, offers a huge improvement over what we have now...and I could actually use it! :-)
I agree, there archive module is kind of a no-module right now. It does not really do anything useful. Boris Mann:
Just wanted to add my +1 to having the rather useless archive module removed/replaced ASAP. Any chance of slipping it into 4.6? It feels like nothing has been done with the current archive module in ages. The calendar in a block is the only half-way useful feature.
There is no way this will be in the 4.6 core, that is already feature locked. Personally I agree with Moshe, it would be better to make it a contrib module. Then if everything works out add it to the core at a future date. Thanks for the positive feedback, I have already gained a few more ideas from your posts.
On Apr 1, 2005 10:12 AM, CodeMonkeyX <codemonkeyx@gmail.com> wrote:
Also, I was thinking it might be nice to provide an archive hook of some type to allow module developers to hook into the archive module and create their own sub-archives. I am not sure how this would be implemented yet, but I was throwing around the idea.
I didn't say anything before, but a lot of this date-related stuff should/could be handled by the event API, especially when we start talking about hooks. I say have a really nice functional archive that does the basics, and rely on hooks into event API to custom, date-based displays. -- Boris Mann http://www.bryght.com
On 02 Apr 2005, at 4:13 AM, Boris Mann wrote:
I didn't say anything before, but a lot of this date-related stuff should/could be handled by the event API, especially when we start talking about hooks. I say have a really nice functional archive that does the basics, and rely on hooks into event API to custom, date-based displays.
And let me interject a +1 for having the event module in core. -- Adrian Rossouw Drupal developer and Bryght Guy http://drupal.org | http://bryght.com
participants (9)
-
Adrian Rossouw -
Boris Mann -
Chris Johnson -
CodeMonkeyX -
Dries Buytaert -
Gabor Hojtsy -
Jim Riggs -
Moshe Weitzman -
Tim Altman