When using this, the relationship between App and App Release is a bit weird. It gets much better if you use nodeconnect then you can create an App Release directly within the App content type. Seems like from the App viewer (not edit form) you should also be able to add a release. This makes me think the relationship is not setup correctly, or possibly that App should be a Vocabulary and not a Node type.

Thoughts???

Comments

alexweber’s picture

alexweber commented

Partially agree.

If you take a step back and think about this conceptually:

  • You define a specific use-case to solve, how to solve it and create an App.
  • You then build an initial and subsequent Releases for that App

Therefore, it makes more sense to have the "App" field be a reference in the "Release". ie: You create a release and specify what app it is for. It doesn't make sense to create a release and then have to go back and edit the App to make it aware of the new release, this is standard open and closed OOP theory! :)

Regarding the node vs term debate for Apps, I think an App should in fact be a content type because it shares the same inherent properties as nodes; ie: An App can be published/unpublished, can be promoted or sticky.

IMO this information (as well as the logo btw) belongs in the App and not in the Release. This is debatable though.

alexweber’s picture

alexweber commented

Also, we should take a look at this #1504256: Deprecate References in favor of Entity Reference before deciding on how to re-implement the reference.