Story vs Page - Again

Hello

Op vrijdag 22 december 2006 05:28, schreef Boris Mann:
> > The reason they exist is historical, and is just
for flexibility.

This reason is, IMNSHO, the worst reason you can think of.
It basically 
says "we are not open for substantial
improvement", or "we made mistakes in 
the past, and are not willing to fix these". 
Drupal has a good history of not stepping into that trap.
Drupal has not been 
afraid to break old code and concepts. Yet in this very case
page and story 
were allowed to co-exist, without any clear reason. FRom 4.6
to 4.7 and now 
from 4.7 to 5.0

> And for an upgrade path from 4.7.
Sure, but does this not indicate that, with little more
effort we would have 
had a *real* solution instead of an *easy* one? 

I can think (and have proposed them several times, even with
patches, just to 
cut off that argument) of at least three solutions that are
really easy: 
 - Pages get a link in the menu automagically, stories not. 
 - The interface for stories: a 20-lines textfield, and a
title. pages: a 50 
lines textfield and a title. 
 - An autocreated taxonomy-tree is connected to stories.
Stories can be 
categorised by default, pages don't need to be.

I guess there are a million small things like this (Boris
proposed some other 
ones), that can bring us to a good intermediate solution:
not removing 
stories or pages, but utilising the virtual difference. 

Bèr
-- 

Ik doneer alle advertentie inkomsten x2 aan Serious
Request/Music 4 life. Doe 
ook mee:
 -- 
http://bler.webschuur.com/i
k_doneer_alle_advertentie_inkomsten_x2_aan_serious_request

Drupal, Ruby on Rails and Joomla! development: webschuur.com
| Drupal hosting: 
www.sympal.nl

On 22 Dec 2006, at 10:01, Bèr Kessels wrote:
> This reason is, IMNSHO, the worst reason you can think
of. It  
> basically
> says "we are not open for substantial
improvement", or "we made  
> mistakes in
> the past, and are not willing to fix these".
> Drupal has a good history of not stepping into that
trap. Drupal  
> has not been
> afraid to break old code and concepts. Yet in this very
case page  
> and story
> were allowed to co-exist, without any clear reason.
FRom 4.6 to 4.7  
> and now
> from 4.7 to 5.0

Ber, we're going to fix this.  We're still in an
intermediate state,  
but making progress.  At this point, it's not clear whether
we want  
to remove 'page', or whether we want to make it better (and
different  
from story).  I'm leaning towards making it better and that
is going  
to take at least one more release ...

--
Dries Buytaert  ::  http://www.buytaert.net/

On Fri, 22 Dec 2006, [utf-8] Bèr Kessels wrote:
> Drupal has a good history of not stepping into that
trap. Drupal has not been
> afraid to break old code and concepts. Yet in this very
case page and story
> were allowed to co-exist, without any clear reason.
FRom 4.6 to 4.7 and now
> from 4.7 to 5.0

Ber the clear reason was that you can attach different
permissions to 
them, different taxonomy vocabularies, different publishing
defaults, 
display of 'submitted by' information, enabling of comments,
etc. These 
are all still utilized features and differentiators of
actual usage 
patterns of story and page (with these usage patterns
differring from 
website to website for good reasons). The possibilties can
be better 
communicated, and better defaults can be made for the two
types, but 
saying that there is no reason to have the two of them is
false IMHO.

Gabor