[development] new sorting.module

[Robert Garrigós Castro]

Thank you, Moshe. I wasn't aware of those issues. I was looking for 
sorting features, not weighting.

In the case of the weight.module (http://drupal.org/node/35984): I like 
the idea of not having to patch the core, but for what I can see, this 
weight.module will not sort nodes alphabetically, which is the only 
reason of sorting.module. In any case this module is not working with 
4.6.3 nor with head.

As per http://drupal.org/node/5738: this is patching the core a lot, 
changing database ('sticky' field to 'weight' field) and doesn't sort 
alphabetically either.

Thus, for what I can see, it would be impossible to sort nodes 
alphabetically without patching the core. Now the question is if you 
think this is important enough to go on to patching the core. I think it 
pays off. In that case, which is the best approach? Is my approach 
something I could carry on? This sorting.module is just working for my 
site right now but it would need some more work to take it to a release 
state. That's why I'm asking the core developers if it will pay off to 
work on this AND if there was something there to work on, that I was 
missing, which you already answered.

Robert G.

Moshe Weitzman wrote:

> Robert Garrigós Castro wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I needed a new type of node sorting for a drupal implementation I'm 
>> working on and I wrote a simple sorting.module that does the job. I 
>> thought it might be a nice feature to have for the new 4.7 so I 
>> uploaded a zip file with the module and a couple of patches here: 
>> http://drupal.org/node/37899
>>
>> I will appreciate any feedback on this in order to evaluate the 
>> possibility to have something ready  for a 4.7RC.
>>
>> Robert Garrigós
>
>
> Hi Robert. The issue tracker is the place for posting feature 
> requests, bugs, and proposed changes to core. I suggest you use this 
> issue, http://drupal.org/node/5738, or post a new one. Also note the 
> contributed module called weight: http://drupal.org/node/35984. It's 
> approach is slightly different than yours though (I like weight.module 
> approach slightly better).
>
>