Robert, You have a compelling argument. I withdraw my opinion from earlier ;-) Regards, Kobus

...

...

rob@robshouse.net 1/30/2006 12:16:08 PM >>> Kobus,

I think the point is that filters have a clear path of integration through the module system already. A common case is that a module depends on the filter for a part of its functionality, and that the filter cannot simply stand alone. The the GMap module, for example. Without the macro creator to generate the blob of text from a Google map, the filter would be useless. Having it in a separate file would benefit nobody, and having some filters in modules and some filters in .filter files would be very confusing. Furthermore, filters often depend on other module hooks, so separating them from their module roots also doesn't make sense. cheers, Robert Kobus Myburgh wrote:

Hehe.. True, true. But how about .kobusshutup?

Honestly, I really see the need of something like this - you can't seriously compare .user and .filter here, can you? A 'user' is not something you apply to content. I can also see the use of .menu. Soon .install files will also be wide spread.

Kobus

...

...

...

ber@webschuur.com 1/30/2006 12:05:45 PM >>> Op maandag 30 januari 2006 10:36, schreef Kobus Myburgh: If I can butt in here long after talks have calmed down, I believe this is a good move, but it could be better if you could have some sort of name.filter that is plugged in with the filter.module, don't you think? In other words, simply copy the new .filter file in the same folder as the module to make it work?

I oppose to Yet Another Module System. we have the .module. What would be next .menu? .node? .user? etc. hooks are perfectly fine for this IMO.