Mamba wrote:
the fmContent module was different, because it kept all the "cloned" modules' data in the same table.[...]
The Publisher's way is better, in my view, because it creates "independent" clones that are easily transferable to other XOOPS installations.
I think so too.
It seems to me that this is a good time for Trabis and Voltan cooperation. Why?
1. Both modules are designed to the same: they are an advanced information management system, both static and dynamic.
2. a) FMContent, that's much more than a module for static content.
b) It has quite good, working util for articles sort order management, well-resolved image display. But cloning method and SEO are "under constraction" (from the other side, SEO is designed holistically).
3. Publisher is totally clonnable. It's still RC (I suppose, the signature of Trabis is to have all modules still "under construction" ), but it works and has some interesting solutions (author's mask, etc.). But there are no good tools for sorting the items, partially SEO and a lot of errors (image management, sth in some blocks, complicated configuration).
If Voltan and Trabis began to collaborate, XOOPS quickly should have a great and flexible module for content management, both static and dynamic. After adding the import tool from Smartsections, niusów, MastopPublish and Content it would be great.
Quote:
irmtfan wrote:
I still think the GIjo way of cloning modules is better (maybe the best way). In the cube they called it "Duplicatable V3 (D3)"
A part of module functions can be placed in XOOPS_LIB - it can be common for all instances/clones.
I still beleve, it will be possible for me to test last RC version of very good "content module" before my summer trip on the sea. It will start about 9th of June - next time I should have a time to test anythig after 25 of July.