Last big change on the 6--2 branch (I hope! ;)

Remove the dependency on Nodequeue from the core modules in the package; move out all the nodequeue stuff to its own helper module.

CommentFileSizeAuthor
#1 711332.content_distribution.move-nodequeue-support.patch22.79 KBjoachim

Comments

joachim’s picture

joachim commented
Status: Active » Fixed
StatusFileSize
new 711332.content_distribution.move-nodequeue-support.patch22.79 KB

#711332 by joachim: Removed nodequeue dependency; moved nodequeue support to a separate module.

In the patch:

- Updated readme
- removed dependencies in info files
- created a content_distribution_nodequeue module. This sits alongside and works the same as content_distribution_nodereference
- moved views argument form element processing to this module
- moved default view content_distribution_queue to this module (this shouldn't affect users who have edited the view)
- added a new default view content_distribution to the main module, without any nodequeue stuff

Status: Fixed » Closed (fixed)

Automatically closed -- issue fixed for 2 weeks with no activity.

patcon’s picture

patcon commented
Status: Closed (fixed) » Active

Sorry -- was there no other way to deal with this than to split away from nodequeue and replicate functionality in a helper module? Isn't this a very anti-Drupal thing to do? Again, apologies if I'm missing something critical.

joachim’s picture

joachim commented
Status: Active » Closed (fixed)

On the contrary, I think this is a very Drupal thing to do.

Allowing several modules to plug in and provide different functionality instead of hardwiring a single module is very Drupal.

Furthermore, Nodequeue wasn't the best choice for this whole system, because it's basically a system to ordering nodes, and what Content Distribution needs is a system for choosing them. Something like flag or nodereference is more suited.

You can still have the nodequeue functionality just by enabling the helper module that the old code has been moved out to. I don't really understand why you've reopened this.

patcon’s picture

patcon commented

Thanks very much for the concise explanation, joachim :)
I only opened because the issue announcing the uncoupling seemed like a good place to find clarfication. Sorry for troubling you though!