After all, we wouldn't want developers to have actually document anything they write. ;-)
On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Jeff Eaton <[email protected]> wrote: > Indeed. > > At least with strings it's possible to develop meaningful conventions. With > ints, there is literally no meaning other than "first come, first served, > set up a registry." > > --Jeff > > > On May 19, 2009, at 1:57 PM, Earnie Boyd wrote: > >> Quoting Jeff Eaton <[email protected]>: >> >>> The problem is not one of information storage length, but of flag >>> collision. >>> >>> Ints are fine as primary keys on a lookup table, or constant values for >>> internal flags that will never be extensible. For things we know people will >>> build on -- like node types, or node build modes -- strings are the only way >>> to avoid collisions when module developers start expanding. >>> >> >> The only way to avoid a collision between developers of modules is to >> create a namespace based on the module name for whatever the data is. So >> for node_type a unique key of module and name creates the necessary >> uniqueness required. The system though needs to include the module for the >> content type in it's presentation so that one knows by looking at the UI >> which module the content type is for. Perhaps the use of fieldsets where >> the fieldset is the module name could help clear up the confusion when more >> than one module could create a UI data conflict. >
