@Michael: thank you for the clear explanation. I'll sure try the module. @Simon: In the current scenario of my application, I might end up building the "cheesefields" module (wonder whether you add cheese to name your modules :P) and then contributing it to the community.
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 12:07 PM, Simon Hobbs <[email protected]> wrote: > Hey Mukesh > > There is really nothing wrong with the approach in core, and making it > generic. It fits a wide variety of use-cases. > > But, sure, maybe we don't always want it that way. That's why Drupal > is awesome. Entity API and other hooks. > > I'm waiting/looking for a module (call it "cheesefields"): > 1. Your DBA makes a pretty table. > 2. You expose the info (via hook_schema) to drupal > 3. You implement hook_cheesefields_info() and to say which field is > the key and which entity type it maps to. > 4. cheesefields then implements the entity api hooks based on our > tables fields and their data types. We get widgets and everything, > with the ability to do an alter on the autodetected widgets and > specify alternative widgets. > > To put it a different way, all your fields in one table is not > different to a field module that defines multiple fields. We just need > to expose it correctly. > > Simon > > PS. If you know of this cheesefields module please tell me. > > > > > On 20 October 2011 17:11, Mukesh Agarwal <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Thank you Ernst for the advice. > > I think we could have achieved different revisions for each field by > marking > > a field in UI as something that requires revision which would mean only > > those fields that require a different revision can do that. Same goes for > > translation. I think the entire field entities API is nice and makes > > programmers life easier. But in trying to make things generic, we have > added > > a lot of overhead on Drupal core - content management system. > > Using MongoDb is a good option. I like the idea but since the support > system > > for the same is not that strong, I'm sure clients will have a concern. > > I'm not sure if I want to chuck Drupal as a solution to our problem. Will > > have to find different ways. > > Not convinced with the separate fields idea though. > > > -- Cheers, Mukesh Agarwal ________________________________ Innoraft Solutions <http://www.innoraft.com> || +91 8017220799
