Fancybox module change ownership

Is there a reason we should support the module being taken over when there are better alternatives in an already crowded group? I'd prefer to just mark this module as abandoned point them to the comparison page so they can choose which module they want to use.

I agree that duplication should be avoided, but I don't understand why ximo could not maintain Fancybox.

Is there any difference if the project (which already exists) is maintained from fivepoints, or ximo? If the project is the duplicate of another project, then it was a duplicate also when fivepoints maintained it.

I've said it before. If a project is abandoned, and we need webmasters to transfer it, I'd like to make sure we actually need to keep developing the module. Otherwise I could request to take over Flexinode when I should be putting my efforts into CCK. I'm just asking how this module is different. It's not included in the comparison handbook page linked in #1, so I don't know.

I've said it before. If a project is abandoned, and we need webmasters to transfer it, I'd like to make sure we actually need to keep developing the module.

Fancybox is not marked as abandoned; that is the reason I asked.

ximo didn't create another module with the same purpose of an existing module, but he wants to take over an existing module that is not marked as abandoned; if he would have created a new module, then nobody would have stopped him from doing it. I think that the different behavior is a little confusing for users.

I completely agree that if a module is already marked as abandoned, then the user should join forces with a module that is not marked as abandoned; but this is not the case. If he is free to choose one of the modules that has the same purpose, why should not he choose Fancybox?

Dave, as you can see here http://jquery.com/demo/thickbox/ Thickbox is not maintained anymore and author recommends fancybox as an alternative.

Why fancybox? Beacause Its more lightweight than LightBox2 (including Lightbox light), so it might be suitable for users that need lightweight modules and libraries.

fancybox js is updated regularly so I think having support for popular jQuery plugin brings more benefit than harm.

subscribing

I agree, I prefer Fancybox to any alternative presented in http://drupal.org/node/266126 ; it's simpler, more lightweight and has a nicer look and feel than the others.

Sounds good. Please make sure you get yourself on the comparison of lightbox modules (http://drupal.org/node/266126) so other's aren't as confused about this module as I was.

FYI for whoever continues the module it is very important to note that it contains non-GPL code in its CVS repository. Followup in #623664: Non-GPL code included in Fancybox CVS folder.

Is there a reason we should support the module being taken over when there are better alternatives in an already crowded group?

Not to start anything, but I cannot believe this. Just doesn't seem very "Drupal" like to me.

Anyway, thank you for comment #8. I'd hate to see this module go away.

-- Jason

Was away the last few days and missed the discussion. I'm glad you let me (and bas.hr) adopt the module. For the records, I chose to take over this module for the same reasons mentioned by bas.hr (#5) and the fact that the module didn't see any current development. Getting on the comparison page is on the todo list.

Interresting discussion though. As Dave pointed out, this really is a crowded group of modules. garywiz has started working on the idea of a framework module for all *box modules, which sounds like a very good idea (see http://groups.drupal.org/node/27516). I'll get in touch with him and talk more about this.