I created the Field Bundle module for the same purpose as the Storage Entities module covers. Because Storage Entities is already in a stable version, already has a userbase, and already covers topics that Field Bundle might also need to cover (e.g. a revision UI), it makes sense to collaborate for a common set of features.
I have some additions from my work on Field Bundle, suggesting to get those into Storage Entities. Feel free to use or not to use them. I'll create further sub-issues if needed.
| Comment | File | Size | Author |
|---|---|---|---|
| #5 | interdiff-3-5.txt | 631 bytes | mxh |
| #5 | 3236468-merge-field-bundle-5.patch | 15.35 KB | mxh |
Comments
Comment #2
mxh commentedComment #3
mxh commentedAttached a patch that merges leftovers from Field Bundle that I found to be useful in Storage Entities. It includes
Comment #4
mxh commented@mandclu what you think, does it make sense to merge #3 into Storage Entities?
Comment #5
mxh commentedAdded __toString() implementation to Storage entity class.
Comment #6
mxh commentedComment #8
mxh commentedAfter some discussions and further evaluation, I've decided to let the Field Bundle project to "stay alive", as some favour the conceptual term of a "Field Bundle" in order to understand its meaning. Plus it's currently not desired for one of my projects to have canonical URLs (though Rabbit hole might be considered in that regard). Still I'm convinced we should keep up the collaboration for having a common ground. There will be stuff resulting from Field Bundle that could go into Storage Entities as further improvements, and vice-versa - though I'd see Storage Entities to be the go-to solution for "more advanced" use cases, e.g. where canonical URLs and some other features like a revision UI are needed out of the box.
I even have a use case in a project where it makes sense to use both modules together: Field bundles are being used by clients for their logical structure besides nodes and paragraphs, whereas Storage entities can be used e.g. for "internal" data like storing aggregated results.
Comment #10
mxh commentedFeel free to review this one, if not interested just un-assign yourself :)
Comment #11
mxh commentedComment #12
mandclu commentedThese changes look great but I've added #3240714: Update existing schema to include name_pattern to capture the need for an update function to ensure existing installs get the updated schema.