[drupal-devel] CCK Nomenclature
Suppose node.module handles all of the content types defined by node modules as today, and a new module is added that handles the administrator-defined content types. What should that module be called? cck.module field.module type.module nodetype.module contenttype.module ... The chosen name will have an impact on the user interface to some degree, because in themes the content types will be prefixed by the name to distinguish them from content types defined by a node module. -- Jonathan Chaffer Applications Developer, structure:interactive (616) 364-7423 http://www.structureinteractive.com/
On Sun, 27 Feb 2005, Jonathan Chaffer wrote:
Suppose node.module handles all of the content types defined by node modules as today, and a new module is added that handles the administrator-defined content types. What should that module be called?
cck.module field.module type.module nodetype.module contenttype.module ...
flexinode.module ;)
The chosen name will have an impact on the user interface to some degree, because in themes the content types will be prefixed by the name to distinguish them from content types defined by a node module.
I think we should add a default method to alias these paths to more meaning full names in any case. Shall we discuss this at lunch? Cheers, Gerhard
Jonathan Chaffer schreef:
Suppose node.module handles all of the content types defined by node modules as today, and a new module is added that handles the administrator-defined content types. What should that module be called?
cck.module field.module type.module nodetype.module contenttype.module
I like the name 'content.module' or 'content-builder.module'.. Stefan
Suppose node.module handles all of the content types defined by node modules as today, and a new module is added that handles the administrator-defined content types. What should that module be called?
cck.module field.module type.module nodetype.module contenttype.module
I like the name 'content.module' or 'content-builder.module'..
Note that it is not possible to have a dash in a module name, since the module name should be included in the function names, and PHP does not allow for a dash to be in the function name. This is why quite a few modules use underscore. Goba
Gabor Hojtsy schreef:
Suppose node.module handles all of the content types defined by node modules as today, and a new module is added that handles the administrator-defined content types. What should that module be called?
cck.module field.module type.module nodetype.module contenttype.module
I like the name 'content.module' or 'content-builder.module'..
Note that it is not possible to have a dash in a module name, since the module name should be included in the function names, and PHP does not allow for a dash to be in the function name. This is why quite a few modules use underscore.
Goba
Well, I know we have some guidelines about that.. But imo i think 'content-builder.module' is way much better than 'content_builder.module'.. Inside the code we should prefix the function offcourse with the '_' form, but in the filename we should use '-'.. it's nicer and reads easier for non-coders.. Stefan
Suppose node.module handles all of the content types defined by node modules as today, and a new module is added that handles the administrator-defined content types. What should that module be called?
cck.module field.module type.module nodetype.module contenttype.module
I like the name 'content.module' or 'content-builder.module'..
Note that it is not possible to have a dash in a module name, since the module name should be included in the function names, and PHP does not allow for a dash to be in the function name. This is why quite a few modules use underscore.
Well, I know we have some guidelines about that.. But imo i think 'content-builder.module' is way much better than 'content_builder.module'.. Inside the code we should prefix the function offcourse with the '_' form, but in the filename we should use '-'.. it's nicer and reads easier for non-coders..
We need a patch which converts dashes to underscores for function names then. Goba
On Feb 27, 2005, at 1:04 PM, Gabor Hojtsy wrote:
Suppose node.module handles all of the content types defined by node modules as today, and a new module is added that handles the administrator-defined content types. What should that module be called? I like the name 'content.module' or 'content-builder.module'.. Note that it is not possible to have a dash in a module name, since the module name should be included in the function names, and PHP does not allow for a dash to be in the function name. This is why quite a few modules use underscore. Well, I know we have some guidelines about that.. But imo i think 'content-builder.module' is way much better than 'content_builder.module'.. Inside the code we should prefix the function offcourse with the '_' form, but in the filename we should use '-'.. it's nicer and reads easier for non-coders..
We need a patch which converts dashes to underscores for function names then.
But even underscores have namespace issues, which has been noted before. A module called foo_bar.module and a module called foo.module can easily have functions with the same names.
Op zondag 27 februari 2005 13:02, schreef Stefan Nagtegaal:
Well, I know we have some guidelines about that.. But imo i think 'content-builder.module' is way much better than 'content_builder.module'.. Inside the code we should prefix the function offcourse with the '_' form, but in the filename we should use '-'.. it's nicer and reads easier for non-coders..
- 100¹100 on that. Makes not sense, has a lot of verhead, and according to Murpys law /will/ break stuff/ An underscore is perfect for me, and most others, I would say. Regards, Bèr -- [ Bèr Kessels | Drupal services www.webschuur.com ]
On Monday 28 February 2005 06:57, Bèr Kessels wrote:
- 100¹100 on that. Makes not sense, has a lot of verhead, and according to Murpys law /will/ break stuff/ An underscore is perfect for me, and most others, I would say.
+1 to Ber's comment. My wife is a Drupal user and administrator, and though a smart lady, she's absolutely *not* a techie. Yet she has no problems with underscores in names. It's just another punctuation character to users. Scott -- -----------------------+------------------------------------------------------ Scott Courtney | "I don't mind Microsoft making money. I mind them scott@4th.com | having a bad operating system." -- Linus Torvalds http://4th.com/ | ("The Rebel Code," NY Times, 21 February 1999) | PGP Public Key at http://4th.com/keys/scott.pubkey
Jonathan Chaffer wrote:
Suppose node.module handles all of the content types defined by node modules as today, and a new module is added that handles the administrator-defined content types. What should that module be called?
cck.module field.module type.module nodetype.module contenttype.module ...
I'd vote for content.module. -- Dries Buytaert :: http://www.buytaert.net/
On Sun, 27 Feb 2005, Dries Buytaert wrote:
Jonathan Chaffer wrote:
Suppose node.module handles all of the content types defined by node modules as today, and a new module is added that handles the administrator-defined content types. What should that module be called?
cck.module field.module type.module nodetype.module contenttype.module ...
I'd vote for content.module.
We discussed to just put everything in node module and await the outcome of the various splitting up ideas. Cheers, Gerhard
I already said node.module =) On 27 Feb 2005, at 1:23 PM, Jonathan Chaffer wrote:
Suppose node.module handles all of the content types defined by node modules as today, and a new module is added that handles the administrator-defined content types. What should that module be called?
cck.module field.module type.module nodetype.module contenttype.module ...
The chosen name will have an impact on the user interface to some degree, because in themes the content types will be prefixed by the name to distinguish them from content types defined by a node module. -- Jonathan Chaffer Applications Developer, structure:interactive (616) 364-7423 http://www.structureinteractive.com/
-- Adrian Rossouw Drupal developer and Bryght Guy http://drupal.org | http://bryght.com
I vote for content.module primarily because the significance of the word "node" is not easily grasped by normal people. So because the name of the module will be visible in URLs to Drupal end-users, I vote for "content". Nic On Feb 28, 2005, at 7:44 AM, Ross Kendall wrote:
I like (in order): content.module content_type.module contenttype.module node.module node_type.module nodetype.module flexinode.module
Steven Wittens wrote:
cck.module field.module type.module nodetype.module contenttype.module
nodebuilder.module?
Steven Wittens
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 08:49:38 -0600, Nicholas Ivy <nji@njivy.org> wrote:
I vote for content.module primarily because the significance of the word "node" is not easily grasped by normal people. So because the name of the module will be visible in URLs to Drupal end-users, I vote for "content".
I like "content" as well. It is simple, obvious, and a single word.
I vote for content.module primarily because the significance of the word "node" is not easily grasped by normal people. So because the name of the module will be visible in URLs to Drupal end-users, I vote for "content".
I like "content" as well. It is simple, obvious, and a single word.
Node != content. Or if we use the name 'content' for 'node', we could actually replace all apperances of 'node' with 'content'... I assumed we use the 'content' word on the interface to not scare people, but acknowledging that a 'content' is less then a 'node'. It all comes down to the definition of course, so both of these words can mean the same. But is a 'user profile' (which is going to be buildable with CCK) a 'content'??? Is a product a 'content'? I would not use this word for it. But then I am not a native English speaker, so I might have a different view on it... Goba
Op maandag 28 februari 2005 21:58, schreef Gabor Hojtsy:
Node != content. Wohoo! :) A node is a point where information gets together to form a "thing". That thing might very well be content yes, but does not nessecarily have to be that.
-1 on the word content.
Or if we use the name 'content' for 'node', we could actually replace all apperances of 'node' with 'content'... I assumed we use the 'content' word on the interface to not scare people, but acknowledging that a 'content' is less then a 'node'. It all comes down to the definition of course, so both of these words can mean the same. But is a 'user profile' (which is going to be buildable with CCK) a 'content'??? Is a product a 'content'? I would not use this word for it. But then I am not a native English speaker, so I might have a different view on it...
:) Grin. Regards, Bèr -- [ Bèr Kessels | Drupal services www.webschuur.com ]
I feel 'content' IS a very generic word, but will concede that it is taken differently by different people. One thing, it is a whole lot more understandable than 'node' (but that may not be an issue - if it is not presented to the user). To illustrate my point... How is 'user profile information' not content? How is 'product information' not content? How is 'article information' not content? (I think they are content - just different types) I'm probably 'flogging a dead horse', so I'll leave it at that.
Node != content.
It all comes down to the definition of course, so both of these words can mean the same. But is a 'user profile' (which is going to be buildable with CCK) a 'content'??? Is a product a 'content'?
I feel 'content' IS a very generic word, but will concede that it is taken differently by different people. One thing, it is a whole lot more understandable than 'node' (but that may not be an issue - if it is not presented to the user).
To illustrate my point...
How is 'user profile information' not content? How is 'product information' not content? How is 'article information' not content? (I think they are content - just different types)
I'm probably 'flogging a dead horse', so I'll leave it at that.
As I said it is probably a cultural question. I won't name the information on my national ID card 'content' (rather property or attribute), but I would name the frontpage of the local news paper 'content'. But I am foreign to English. Just note that others might have similar perceptions about the word 'content'. I am not against using this word, nor do I have something better to suggest, so I am not really bringing the discussion further myself... I just would not call the group of properties in my user profile 'content'... Goba
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 17:28:34 +0000, Gabor Hojtsy <gabor@hojtsy.hu> wrote:
As I said it is probably a cultural question. I won't name the information on my national ID card 'content' (rather property or attribute), but I would name the frontpage of the local news paper 'content'. But I am foreign to English. Just note that others might have similar perceptions about the word 'content'. I am not against using this word, nor do I have something better to suggest, so I am not really bringing the discussion further myself... I just would not call the group of properties in my user profile 'content'...
This term is probably defined differently for publishing purposes than I have defined it. Regardless of what the word means to any individual, I think it is important to agree on the definition of this term (and others) *for our purposes* before using it. There is probably already an unspoken understanding of the definition which is undocumented so maybe we should document what constitutes a node and what constitutes content.
On 27 Feb 2005, at 11:23, Jonathan Chaffer wrote:
Suppose node.module handles all of the content types defined by node modules as today, and a new module is added that handles the administrator-defined content types. What should that module be called?
define_content.module
On 28 Feb 2005, at 9:37 PM, Robert Castelo wrote:
define_content.module
fragrance.module -- Adrian Rossouw Drupal developer and Bryght Guy http://drupal.org | http://bryght.com
Adrian Rossouw wrote:
On 28 Feb 2005, at 9:37 PM, Robert Castelo wrote:
define_content.module
fragrance.module
YES! or flavour.module or cocktail.module or laboratory.module Don't get caught in a semantic trap. Be creative and brand the module - let its functionality speak for itself. andre
Andre Molnar wrote:
fragrance.module
YES! or flavour.module or cocktail.module or laboratory.module
Don't get caught in a semantic trap. Be creative and brand the module - let its functionality speak for itself.
andre
Actually, that sounds like good advice. +1 on that method for naming. -- Chris Johnson (irc: cxj)
On Wednesday 02 March 2005 16.51, Chris Johnson wrote:
Andre Molnar wrote:
fragrance.module
YES! or flavour.module or cocktail.module or laboratory.module
Don't get caught in a semantic trap. Be creative and brand the module - let its functionality speak for itself.
cocktail or laboratory sounds very, very good.
Chris Johnson wrote:
Andre Molnar wrote:
fragrance.module
YES! or flavour.module or cocktail.module or laboratory.module
Don't get caught in a semantic trap. Be creative and brand the module - let its functionality speak for itself.
andre
Actually, that sounds like good advice. +1 on that method for naming.
-- Chris Johnson (irc: cxj)
Has the trademark on Legos expired? legos.module? -Mark
I had another name: convenio.module Convenio is the latin word for "meeting" or "assembling". Which is what we do: assemble data, and letting it meet. (http://www.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/lookup.pl?stem=conve&ending=nio) But nice is that the word looks and sounds like "convenient", which is what our Drupal experince will be soon after this module gets in ;). Bèr
participants (17)
-
Adrian Rossouw -
Andre Molnar -
Bèr Kessels -
Chris Cook -
Chris Johnson -
Dries Buytaert -
Gabor Hojtsy -
Gerhard Killesreiter -
Jonathan Chaffer -
Mark -
Negyesi Karoly -
Nicholas Ivy -
Robert Castelo -
Ross Kendall -
Scott Courtney -
Stefan Nagtegaal -
Steven Wittens