Realty

Updating priority according to priority guidelines. The application's priority should be set back to normal once a reviewer responds to your application and the application review process has continued.

The module seems to just add a content type and a view. I don't see any functionality. I'm not sure this qualifies.

Anyone with a second opinion?

Indeed, that is what I thought when I saw it but I was going to check it out for myself. It certainly sounds like building an application like this is a perfect task for a custom content type and views, but maybe we're not reading it right? Does this do anything particularly different from what can be achieved with a custom content type and views, Jabbtech?

EDIT: actually, looking at the code it looks like it simply combines CCK field modules to make a property listing content type and adds a view for the content type. This can easily be achieved by adding the fields to a content type and creating a fairly simple view without a module, so what is the benefit of putting this into a module?

I would agree that this likely cannot be accepted as it simply appear to package functionality that can be achieved through basic usage of CCK and views. However @Jabbtech, you certainly are free to make an argument for your contribution. We would like to hear your side on why this is not duplicating functionality or why this module would be necessary.

Thanks for your honesty in the process. It is clear that many modules could be accomplished with various combinations of the major modules like views, CCK, rules, content profile, etc. And I think there are certainly cases in which it is warranted to developed a module that does something that could conceivably be accomplished with those tools. For instance, in cases where setting up CCK and views to achieve a goal would be particularly complicated for beginning users.

Unfortunately, this module largely does not even implement this functionality in it's own code, but rather it relies on modules that people could use to create the same application themselves without the help of the module. For that reason, the module simply appears to contain unnecessary code and I think David will agree (?) that this is not enough to warrant a new project. While I'm hesitant to say it is duplicating functionality, it does something awfully close in that it improves upon something that doesn't need improving and it largely uses the awesomeness of other modules to provide functionality that those other module can do themselves.

With a lack of development history and a duplication issue in this project, we won't be able to approve it. And if you'd prefer, we can even get a third opinion on this. However, we certainly appreciate your contributions to the community and we apologize for the long wait in the queue just to hear bad news! But you are absolutely more than welcome to submit another module for review in the future.