I've been playing with SimpleViews: I think it will help us scratch some itches our clients have. This concern doesn't apply to them. I, however, have just wanted to use it as a tool to save a few moments of grunt work to have a view that I can play with in the regular Views UI. What would be lovely, however, would be if the view names were more descriptive.

Specifically, I'd love to see path based view names (paths seem safe, since they are guaranteed unique). If my path is foo/bar, could my view name be simpleviews_foo_bar instead of simpleviews_2?

I know this is an edge case, and perhaps the cons outweight the pros, but I thought I'd throw it out there.

Comments

eaton’s picture

eaton commented

Specifically, I'd love to see path based view names (paths seem safe, since they are guaranteed unique). If my path is foo/bar, could my view name be simpleviews_foo_bar instead of simpleviews_2?

I considered this during development, but I was concerned about the implications of changing the View's name -- its unique identifier for other code -- whenever the path changed. If a user were to override a Simpleview in Views UI, then change the path in Simpleviews, they'd end up with two separate views...

I'm undecided, I think -- I lean towards consistency, but would definitely like additional input before pushing forward. Anyone else have thoughts on this?

davideads’s picture

davideads commented

I hadn't thought about changing the path. I think given the goals of SimpleViews, I suspect allowing the user to change the path is more important than a more developer friendly view name.

zilla’s picture

zilla commented

i think a simple annotation beyond the actual unique view name would handle this, like adding a description during creation?

Scott J’s picture

Scott J commented

I like the names created by ticking "Make a listing page for this content type" which follow the format of simpleviews_content-type.

Nice.