[development] The Status and Future of the Body Field

[Shai Gluskin]

Michael,

Thanks... that makes sense...

But a concern here. Isn't it possible that by supporting the legacy behavior
so thoroughly that lots of modules may upgrade to 7 but not actually make
themselves compatible with fields-in-core? They won't look broken initially
because old and new sites are using the legacy body field.

Shai

On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 1:10 PM, Michael Prasuhn <mike at mikeyp.net> wrote:

> One reason is that many modules and places in Drupal are used to
> $node->body and removing that standard and using $node->field_FOO is fine if
> you know what you are doing, but otherwise it's a bit of a legacy practice.
>
> -Mike
> __________________
> Michael Prasuhn
> 503.512.0822 office
> mike at mikeyp.net
> http://mikeyp.net
>
> On Jan 15, 2010, at 8:02 AM, Shai Gluskin wrote:
>
> > @Naheem,
> >
> > That doesn't answer the question. We can use a fields-in-core field to
> create a body field that automatically gets created when you create a new
> content-type. Sensible default settings have nothing to do with it. So I
> still ask, "Why are we using the legacy body field for new content types in
> D7?"
> >
> > While we are talking sensible defaults... the default for a body field in
> a new content type should be to use the "Long text" handler and NOT the
> "Long text with summary." The use-cases for "Long text with summary" are far
> fewer than for "Long text." And it can take years for people to actually
> grok "long text with summary" anyway :). Now that we've got fields-in-core,
> we should be defaulting on a new content-type body field to "long text".
> >
> > Shai
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 10:50 AM, Naheem Zaffar <naheemzaffar at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > 2010/1/15 Shai Gluskin <shai at content2zero.com>
> >
> > But this is what I don't get: Why is the body field still there when you
> create a new content-type the body field is still there on the content-type
> edit screen.
> >
> > usability - most people will expect a content type to be useable after
> creation.
> >
> > Customisation is great, but it should never be at the expense of good
> defaults
> >
> >
> >
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/development/attachments/20100115/cce02518/attachment.html