Oliver Baltzer wrote: > This is just an idea and I am not shure to what extent it fits into the > no-fluff concept of Radiant. It seems that many people are trying to extend > Radiant and in many cases their extensions have nothing to do with pages > (i.e. attachments, forms, comments, forums, etc.) or in particular with > page parts as they are currently defined. A single arbitrary length string > is just not the right data type to store an attachment, a form or a forum > and its user interface via a text area clearly does not allow for > convenient input. > > Therefore, I suggest to treat page parts as an abstract data type whose > implementation is determined by the behavior selected for a page. > Specifically the current PagePart model acts as an interface between the > Page model and the actual implementation of the page parts used. Each > implementation of a page part defines its own database schema and input > forms. The behavior of a page will determine which implementations of page > parts can be used for that page, ideally which parts are required and which > are optional. That way one can ensure that the content of each page part > can be accessed and processed properly.
This is a good idea and it has been brought up once before. I hate to shoot it down right now, but it's not within the current scope of what I'm aiming to do with Radiant. It may be a 2.0 idea, but not 1.0. -- John Long http://wiseheartdesign.com _______________________________________________ Radiant mailing list [email protected] http://lists.radiantcms.org/mailman/listinfo/radiant
