By zach harkey on

Is there a fundamental difference between these two modules? Can anyone suggest a reason to use one over the other?

CCK Taxonomy Fields
Taxonomy vocabularies will show up as field types that can be added to content types using CCK

Content Taxonomy
This module provides a field type for CCK for referencing taxonomy terms.

⋅ Categories: Drupal 5.x

Comments

zach harkey’s picture

zach harkey commented

I ran across this post by Robert Douglass which explains his motivation for creating the CCK Taxonomy Fields module. In it he briefly addresses the Content Taxonomy module.

In trying to evaluate and compare these modules, I installed them both. Now I can't figure out where one ends and the other begins. Sigh.

-zach
--
harkey design

: z

mbria’s picture

mbria commented

Just from my experience, Content taxonomy is richer in features (allows different kind of taxonomy associations) but code is difficult to follow and sometimes a little buggy. CCK taxonomy is very simple (right now) but code is cleaner (may be because is simpler :-P)

Test both. If CCK fits with your needs go with it... but if you need (for instance) extending taxonomies with folkonomies or some other extra stuff you will need CT.

zach harkey’s picture

zach harkey commented

Leaning toward Content taxonomy at this point.

I really wish there was more consistency with cck module naming, grouping, etc.

P.S. Can someone gimme an idea of what some of these bugs I keep hearing about are?

-zach
--
harkey design

: z

luyendao’s picture

luyendao commented

I didn't go into deep testing, but on my last project i was using CCK taxonomy, and i had trouble pulling values from its tables - not sure what it was exactly, as I ended up using content taxonomy. Overall I think you can do more with content taxonomy, not to mention it's been around since day 1.

mbria’s picture

mbria commented

I'm neither an expert, but I spend a lot of time digging into some different issues to take this blur picture I'm talking about.

I can't summarize (I didn't store the issue links) but take a look to Content taxonomy errors and bugs and you will find them easily.

Most of them are fixed or include workarounds or patches.

For instance, some I had trouble adding taxonomies stored in cck or as tags. Content taxonomy recommend store in both places.
I also have problems to show links to vocabulary terms (while it's supposed to be a CT feature "out of the box") so I was forced to create my own template (with Content Template or directly as a tpl) to let the terms be linked.

One thing that was difficult for me to understand is how to deal with categories. I don't know about the recommended way to do this but as far as every category need to be associated to a content type and after this is shown in the content form, I created a "dummy-cck" content where I link every category. After this, I play with Content Taxonomy (instead of Categories) to let my new-functional content types link to categories as I wish.

As I said, I'm also a newbie... so please, post your advances or valuable links. I will do the same from this moment.

Cheers,

m.

jiangxijay’s picture

jiangxijay commented

I'm at an early stage of evaluating these various options. Here are a couple of comments.

First, the two primary modules you're discussing are: CCK Taxonomy and Content Taxonomy. There is no CCK Taxonomy Fields. Taxonomy Fields is a separate modules that fulfills a different function.

The main difference I see is that CCK Taxonomy moves storage of a taxonomy into a CCK field and, unless I'm wrong, ignores future changes to the original taxonomy terms. It also appears to be one-way, from taxonomy into CCK field.

On the other hand, Content Taxonomy allows an option for writing back into the original taxonomy. (The developer appears to recommend storage in both).

The issues list appears to be longer for Content Taxonomy, but it does more, has been around longer, and most problems appear to be fixed.

I understand that developers feel the Content Taxonomy code is complicated, but I can't speak to that.

I'm also interested in Taxonomy Fields which purports to allow a CCK field to push content back into the original taxonomy.

So, there are a few initial thoughts. I will be testing all these options in the next week — I've already been using CCK Taxonomy, but I NEED free tagging support, which it doesn't have — and I look forward to reporting from practical experience next.

agharbeia’s picture

agharbeia commented

On a tactical level I like being able not to have to associate a vocabulary with content types which is provided by CC Taxonomy.

Generally I like the philosophy to migrating taxonomy controls to regular fields. Thinking of this last feature I must say that I like having the option to do , or at least being able to do so if needed, as I understand that for simpler sites the idea of being able to categorise content without delving into content-type design is so valuable and it is how categories started in Drupal.

I can also imagine cases where both approaches could be utilised at the same time.

jiangxijay wrote:

First, the two primary modules you're discussing are: CCK Taxonomy and Content Taxonomy. There is no CCK Taxonomy Fields.

this module is called "CCK Taxonomy" in the project name, i.e. in the URI and CVS, but the project's page has the title "CCK Taxonomy Fields" (until now), hence the confusion.

casey’s picture

casey commented

Comparison of CCK/Taxonomy Modules: http://drupal.org/node/212834

Rosamunda’s picture

Rosamunda commented

CCK Taxonomy is an abandoned module (look at who´s the author of that module).
I would like to know if that "buggy" module Content Taxonomy has been debbuged :)

Rosamunda
Buenos Aires | Argentina
www.ligadelconsorcista.org