[development] the past, present and future of drupal admin

Earl Miles merlin at logrus.com
Thu Jul 27 18:06:40 UTC 2006

Larry Garfield wrote:
> On Thu, July 27, 2006 12:05 pm, Earl Miles said:
>>So, coming back around, my personal belief is that systems with large
>>administrative pages should have their settings with the administrative
>>pages. Systems which have, basically, only settings, should have their
>>settings in the Settings block.
> Wait, didn't you just say exactly what you just said is bad?  That some
> things are under admin/settings while others are under just admin, and
> there's no clear reason why for any of them?

Only if either I misspoke or you misread.

>>Additionally, what I was trying to set up is that contrib modules should
>>have their settings in the 'modules' block. If for no other reason than
>>because when you enable new stuff, chances are it'll either create a new
>>system (ecommerce is something I would expect to just have its own
>>administrative block) or it will put itself into the modules section.
> Random data point:  For whatever reason, when my brain says "I want to
> change the settings for the foobar module", my hand clicks the modules
> link.  Why?  I think it's because my brain thinks modules -> settings
> rather than settings -> module.  I'm not sure how common that is, but
> after more than a year my hand still won't pay attention and go where it's
> supposed to.

And this is why I want modules to have their settings in the modules 

> Which brings up yet another question: Should settings be clustered by the
> module that provides them in the first place (admin/settings/foobar), or
> by the type of activity to which they belong (admin/content_types and so
> forth)?  Right now we do a little of each, which I can't see as a good
> thing.

By 'right now' do you mean current Drupal or the patch I'm working on?

More information about the development mailing list