"Content-Type" Abstraction

hakjoon · 2007-01-16 14:43:33

Doesn’t calling exit terminate the page building before things like the bottom drop down list and the logout link render? That was what I experienced when I was using it to render callbacks in pop up windows.

Of course I might have just been missing something when I tried, it’s been a while. If so please ignore my statement and redirect my excitement to the new knowledge I have acquired.

Last edited by hakjoon (2007-01-16 14:43:50)

zem · 2007-01-16 22:02:04

Doesn’t calling exit terminate the page building before things like the bottom drop down list and the logout link render?

Just call end_page() yourself before exit if that’s a problem.

hakjoon · 2007-01-17 00:00:13

Rockin. Thanks guys.

Still think elements are cool.

km · 2008-04-14 05:07:10

Said out of love:

I have to say I’m completely confused as to why this is controversial.

I understand opportunity cost as regards to implementation, but otherwise…?

I’ve been digging around the code trying to create a ‘plugin’ that is simply a content type. I’m going to succeed hell-or-high-water, but it just seems odd that articles/images/files/links aren’t all types of “content” with different fields.

I think of this abstraction idea as not abstract, but concrete… like “True Sections”.

The Classifieds, Movie Reviews, Arts pages, Sports boxscores, and News articles in a newspaper have very little structural relation to each other.

Similarly, a site’s blog, news commentary, cd review, photo album, podcast, blogroll, technical how-to articles, etcetc all have very little to do with each other structurally. Calling them all ‘articles’ and smushing their 48 fields (say) together into one content type is just confusing. (And with only 10 custom fields of one datatype…. braingroan)

If TXP shipped with only Articles, Links, Files, Images, that’d be great and-user friendly, but it’d be amazing to wander into the the db’s txp_content_types, add a row, a corresponding table with fields, and Wow! a whole new #$*()# reason for existence.

Anyway, I say this out of love, because I think TXP is awesome, and I want to use it waaaaay more than I do, and because I think extensibility makes the guts simpler, not more complicated, and would offer a sudden rush of uses, implementations, shared (and awesome) content types (like contenttype plugins!), and users.

It would also bring world peace.

Anyway, I’m just pointing out that I think this is a huge itch that needs to be scratched. I can’t build a back-scratcher that big, but I’m betting somebody can.

As to Drupal, CCK isn’t even in core, and depends on Views, and lags behind final releases by like a year.

TXP gets presentation and simplicity templates sooooo right (imo), that I just wish the contenttypes were that straightforward…

Sincerely,
Blah Q. Public

Last edited by km (2008-04-14 05:14:52)

Bloke · 2008-04-14 07:59:55

km wrote:

I’ve been digging around the code trying to create a ‘plugin’ that is simply a content type. I’m going to succeed hell-or-high-water… I think this is a huge itch that needs to be scratched. I can’t build a back-scratcher that big, but I’m betting somebody can.

Hi km. Though it sounds awesome and I’d love to see it done, you might want to point some of your effort over to xpattern instead.

With your ideas and enthusiasm, you could give us (the Royal Us; I’ve been out of the loop a bit the past few months) a hand batting about the best way forward for content types on the xpattern forum. Just a thought.

Last edited by Bloke (2008-04-14 08:00:27)

hakjoon · 2008-04-14 15:17:00

This is definitely something xPattern hopes to tackle.

Textpattern CMS

Textpattern CMS support forum

#16 2007-01-16 14:43:33

Re: "Content-Type" Abstraction

#17 2007-01-16 22:02:04

Re: "Content-Type" Abstraction

#18 2007-01-17 00:00:13

Re: "Content-Type" Abstraction

#19 2008-04-14 05:07:10

Re: "Content-Type" Abstraction

#20 2008-04-14 07:59:55

Re: "Content-Type" Abstraction

#21 2008-04-14 15:17:00

Re: "Content-Type" Abstraction

Board footer