[development] flexinode towards 4.7: update, and it needs additional maintainer(s)

Bèr Kessels ber at webschuur.com
Sat Apr 22 19:55:55 UTC 2006


Op vrijdag 21 april 2006 15:23, schreef Dries Buytaert:
> I agree, but the complexity of the CCK scares me a bit.  Simplicity  
> is an important aspect too; it makes the code accessible and lowers  
> the barrier to entry.

IMO this is one of the things that has improved a lot between flexinode and 

However, making a new field for fexinode requires less then 1/3rd of the code 
needed for a field in CCK. I think we should really see that this gets 

A single field for CCK needs more code then a simple node type containing such 
a field. This can be bad, because developing a single field is often harder 
then doing the same for flexinode.

A single field for CCK requires you to build a whole new module. For most of 
us this is easier then some arbitrary concept like the flexinode .inc. So 
this can be an improvement. But for this to be usable, we REALLY need some 
dependency and an overhaul of the module-managing interface.

A module containing a lot of fields is much smaller then the same amount of 
fields in flexinode. This is good thing too. 

I think that the complexity of CCK is mostly there, because it was not 
documented fully. Also because its concepts (widgets, fields etc) need 
finetuning and explanation. 

All in all, I have a lot of confidence in CCK.


More information about the development mailing list