Using nodes for FB applications/templates feels "icky"
| Project: | Drupal for Facebook |
| Version: | 6.x-2.x-dev |
| Component: | User interface |
| Category: | feature request |
| Priority: | minor |
| Assigned: | Unassigned |
| Status: | active |
Jump to:
I really like this module's potential, but one thing that's a real turn-off: why are Applications and Templates being created as nodes? Now, the FB applications and templates show up in "Latest Entries" and "Popular Content" blocks. And I shudder at how they have NIDs and how other things (like Pathauto, Fivestar, Attachments, Comments) are present along with the configuration options specific to this module. The whole concept seems "icky" to me.
Your demo looks really nice. It's apparent that you're an experienced module developer, so I'm sure you have very good reasons for doing it this way. But I was just curious and thought I'd pose the question.
Of the few Facebook modules available, this one certainly makes the most of the Facebook API. I really want to use it, but I just can't get comfortable with it in my site.
I hope my feedback is constructive in some way :)
#1
Oh, almost forgot: I did read all your documentation (or, at least I believe I have), so if this has been discussed, I do apologize for bringing this up again.
#2
The Apps and Templates are things that you can create any number of, edit, delete, and third-party modules can extend. So I thought to myself, is there anything already out there that does this, or do I have to reinvent the wheel? I don't like re-inventing wheels, and nodes fit the bill.
If you use Views, you can easily create latest entries or popular content blocks which do not include these nodes. In my mind, you're pointing out a shortcoming of those other features, rather than a problem with using nodes this way.
That said, I would happily consider any patches which make the situation less icky.
#3
I do use views, but I haven't completely abandoned the built-in blocks and other modules in favor of Views. So what you are saying is that I'd have to make major changes to my site to make this module play well? That seems backwards to me. I just hate having to tweak and tweak just to get advertised functionality from a module.
I'm not sure how you take feedback (I'm trying to make it useful to you), but it appears that setting this to "by design", however correct, hides this from the open issues list. If you want to hear from others on this, perhaps you could leave this issue open so as to give it a better shot of being seen?
#4
Fair enough. I would like to hear from others. There was an interesting thread on the developer email list about this a while back, you may want to read.
This is an open source project and, like with drupal, anyone can scratch their own itch. This has yet to be a problem for me, so I'm happy not writing new code to solve a problem that's already solved by the node api. However you can submit a patch and I'll consider it.
From a philosophical point of view, why isn't a feed template a node? As content, it can have revisions, comments, etc. Site administrators may want to use these features. Why take that away?