[development] Filter-sophical question - Never Mind

[David Metzler]

Actually that argument doesn't follow.  Many modules, (e.g. views)  
provide blocks, but do not require them in order to function.  If  
your module is one of those it doesn't make sense  to indicate blocks  
as a dependency.  I haven't researched it but I do believe that most  
block providing modules fall into that category.   Dependencies  
should be reserved for such cases when your module simply will not  
function without the other module.  I think you could still make that  
argument for modules that exist to only provide a filter, but it  
shouldn't be viewed as documentation for what features a module  
provides. \\Dave


On Oct 4, 2008, at 8:50 AM, Nancy Wichmann wrote:

> <image001.jpg>
> When I did this in one of my filters, I looked to see how it  
> documents and discovered my own answer.  This could get absurd  
> because then we should have everyone who supplies a block list the  
> block module, and etc.
>
>
>
> So never mind.
>
>
>
> Nancy E. Wichmann, PMP
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: development-bounces at drupal.org [mailto:development- 
> bounces at drupal.org]On Behalf Of Nancy Wichmann
> Sent: Saturday, October 04, 2008 11:30 AM
> To: Development at Drupal. Org
> Subject: [development] Filter-sophical question
>
>
>
> Since Filter is a core-required module, we do not need to list it  
> as a dependency in filter modules.  Technically, this is wrong (not  
> listing a dependency).  I have not seen any filter module that  
> actually lists filter as a requirement.  While it does not cause  
> any serious problems, it does result in incomplete self- 
> documentation.  Should we encourage filter module owners (including  
> me) to correct this?
>
>
>
> Nancy E. Wichmann, PMP
>
>
>
>
>
> <image001.jpg>
> This message cannot be displayed because of the way it is  
> formatted. Ask the sender to send it again using a different format  
> or email program.
>
> multipart/alternative
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.7.5/1704 - Release Date:  
> 10/2/2008 9:35 PM

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/development/attachments/20081004/0ae699fb/attachment-0001.htm