Video » package name

Hi Vernon,

thank you for your help.

Is there a reason to have video module name lowercase?

Modules are all named like Video Image, Video Upload.. so why not video too?

Fabio

Committed to CVS.

Thanks,

Fabio

hey
please move video to Fields package.
thats the standard package used by many and to be used by all Fields modules.

additional video modules besides Video and Video UI that aren't shipped with video could use the video package.

no need to add an additional package nor to make modules spread like this.

Its little but confusing when its move to Field package, so would better fit with Video package or Media

how is it confusing if it's a Field for CCK/Content?

it does not work without Content in D7.

yes, it does not work without CCK, but its not just a CCK field, its lot more than that. So I should go for video to minimize the confusion. Or else I should separate the Field as a separate module and move there to the CCK package. So my intention is go for Media or Video not to the Field :o)

but it's still a field :)

there's a lot of modules that go in the Fields package in D7 and even lots more in CCK package in D6.
many of these aren't fields at all.

there is also a CCK package in D7, currently being used by CCK module and Migrate.

CCK in D6:

CCK
	AudioField	6.x-1.0
	CCK Field Definitions	6.x-1.2   -------------------> not a field
	Colorpicker Widget	6.x-2.1   -------------------> not a field
	Content	6.x-2.9   -------------------> not a field
	Content Copy	6.x-2.9   -------------------> not a field
	Content Display Order	6.x-1.0   -------------------> not a field
	Content Permissions	6.x-2.9   -------------------> not a field
	Content Taxonomy	6.x-1.0-rc2
	Content Taxonomy Autocomplete	6.x-1.0-rc2   -------------------> not a field
	Content Taxonomy Options	6.x-1.0-rc2   -------------------> not a field
	Content Taxonomy Tree	6.x-1.0-rc2   -------------------> not a field
	Currency CCK	6.x-1.1
	Deck	6.x-1.2
	Email	6.x-1.2
	Fieldgroup	6.x-2.9   -------------------> not a field, but related
	FileField	6.x-3.9
	FileField Meta	6.x-3.9   -------------------> not a field
	FileField Sources	6.x-1.2   -------------------> not a field
	FileField UI Extras	6.x-1.0-rc2   -------------------> not a field
	Formatted Number CCK	6.x-1.3
	Image FUpload (CCK)	6.x-3.0-rc2
	ImageField	6.x-3.9
	ImageField Tokens	6.x-1.0   -------------------> not a field
	Link	6.x-2.9
	Measured Value Field	6.x-1.1
	Node Reference	6.x-2.9
	Node Reference URL Widget	6.x-1.6   -------------------> not a field
	Number	6.x-2.9
	Option Widgets	6.x-2.9   -------------------> not a field
	Referential Integrity for CCK	6.x-1.1   -------------------> not a field
	Semantic CCK	6.x-1.2   -------------------> not a field
	Text	6.x-2.9
	User Reference	6.x-2.9
	Videofield	6.x-1.35

CCK in D7:

	CCK	7.x-2.x-dev   -------------------> not a field
	Content Migrate	7.x-2.x-dev   -------------------> not a field

Fields in D7:

	Address Field	7.x-1.x-dev			
	Email	7.x-1.0-beta1
	Field definitions	7.x-1.x-dev   -------------------> not a field
	Fieldgroup	7.x-1.0-rc2   -------------------> not a field, but related
	Link	7.x-1.0-alpha3
	Node Reference	7.x-2.x-dev
	References	7.x-2.x-dev   -------------------> not a field, the mother module for node/user ref.
	User Reference	7.x-2.x-dev

Fields, Content and CCK are also, most of time, alias of the same thing, and interpreted by users as the same thing.

Nice work around on this. I will think about it. May on next release we can package it differently or I can split up video video field as a separate module and add it to Field or move whole thing to Media package.

Moving in to Media as it will really sense.