[drupal-devel] New image.module

[Chris Cook]

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 14:33:49 -0500, James Walker <walkah at walkah.net> wrote:
> The other major addition (which was previously left out intentionally)
> is the re-introduction of basic image gallery functionality. This is
> minimalistic intentionally - and not meant to stifle or otherwise
> conflict with other initiatives (such as moshe's album.module). A
> couple things to note:  the maintenance of gallery albums is done at
> ?q=admin/image and should be familiar in style for those of you who
> have tried HEAD's latest forum.module. Also, the layout no longer uses

I'm not really satisfied with being restricted to a separate
vocabulary for image galleries. I am able to use another vocabulary
for images but the "Image Galleries" vocabulary is not removable from
the node creation form and /image *only* looks for galleries in its
hardcoded vocabulary. It might be better to not force this vocabulary.

It would also be nice to have some "taxonomy on the fly" capability
but I suppose this is better handled in a album/gallery module.

Another confusing thing is that I don't see an option to view images
at other dimensions. I've added a third dimension to
/admin/settings/image but no other size options are displayed on any
image view that I've seen.

Otherwise, this module is working nicely. Great work. I'm just testing
it on Drupal cvs and haven't tried upgrading an existing gallery so
have nothing to report there.

> Moving forward - I'd really like to get this into modules/image as soon
> as possible so that we (as a community) can use project.module for bug
> & feature tracking (rather than random emails / IRC chats / etc).
> Ideally, I'd like this to happen by the time contrib is branched for
> DRUPAL-4-6 so for 4.6 there will be no confusion of which image.module
> to use, etc. As there is a 4.5 version as well, I'm willing to move
> that into the DRUPAL-4-5 branch, but I'd like to get some consensus on
> that - as I worry it might 'cause more confusion than is really
> necessary.

It would be great to have this for 4.6. I think caution is in order
though as the upgrade from the existing image module may require quite
a bit of testing. Maybe the 4.5 version of the module should be
mentioned (more) on Drupal.org to get more testing going.