[development] nodeapi image concept (request for feedback)

[Earl Miles]

At the same time I would also separate out the gallery portion of the 
code; perhaps making it a separate module (image.module + 
image_gallery.module) which would allow alternative galleries 
(shazamgallery for example) to have more freedom without worrying about 
the default image gallery stuff. Taxonomy is not always appropriate for 
galleries.

Jeff Eaton wrote:
> I think it's exactly what a lot of people have been asking for in 
> image.module for a long time -- definitely more useful for the 
> majority of people than the gallery function. Like uploading, it can 
> be turned off on a nodetype by nodetype basis, so nothing is *forced* 
> on users, neh?
>  
> I'm curious whether it could be used by a module I'm working on -- a 
> 'graphic novel' nodetype that would have 2 explicitly named images 
> associated with it (one for the left page and one for the right page 
> of a two-page spread).
>  
> --Jeff
>
>     -----Original Message-----
>     *From:* James Gilliland [mailto:neclimdul at gmail.com]
>     *Sent:* Sunday, April 02, 2006 12:36 PM
>     *To:* development at drupal.org
>     *Subject:* Re: [development] nodeapi image concept (request for
>     feedback)
>
>     I'd like to see it there
>
>     On 4/2/06, *James Walker* <walkah at walkah.net
>     <mailto:walkah at walkah.net>> wrote:
>
>         On 31-Mar-06, at 5:25 PM, Nedjo Rogers wrote:
>
>         > There's an issue on the image module for moving to nodeapi:
>         >
>         > http://drupal.org/node/43628
>
>         Yeah, after looking through the code, I'm inclined to say this
>         makes
>         sense directly in image.module . Do others have a strong opinion?
>
>         --
>         James Walker :: http://walkah.net/ :: xmpp:walkah at walkah.net
>         <mailto:xmpp:walkah at walkah.net>
>
>
>
>