[development] One-to-one tables considered harmful

Wim Leers bashratthesneaky at gmail.com
Mon Jun 4 15:34:19 UTC 2007

Also, if comments are nodes, then you can modify them through CCK.  
Many new things would be possible that currently are not (or not as  
easily) - or am I seeing that wrong?
But then the need to have per-content type "comment content types"  
could become a requirement, simply because you need different CCK  
fields per content type.

So this brings me to: why don't we allow for any content type to be  
chosen as the "comment content type"?

Of course this is completely off-topic, sorry for that.


On Jun 4, 2007, at 16:50 , Robert Douglass wrote:

> Earnie Boyd wrote:
>> I have been reading the posts and wondering what is so different  
>> about a comment.  A comment is nothing more than content very much  
>> similar to a node.  As content it has a specialized content type  
>> which at the moment isn't visible to the administrator.  So, I  
>> think to myself that perhaps a comment should be treated as a node  
>> and the comment table is nothing more than a one to many  
>> relationship mapper.  I'll give this some more thought toward D-7  
>> I can see this idea as enhancing many modules.
> Please to check out the nodecomment module which does just what you  
> describe: http://drupal.org/project/nodecomment

More information about the development mailing list