Forum OpenACS Development: Re: Parent_id for folders with no parent in acs-content-repository

Essentially "folder" should be an object defined by acs-kernel.

If we move further in the direction of folding "content_item" into acs-kernel for our "named object" needs, "folder" would be derived from this (as "content_folder" is today derived from "content_item").

And if necessary we could derive a special subtype of folder to match today's "site_node" type.

Along with supporting a non-revisioned form of "content_item" this would go a long ways towards unifying the two parallel object models we're dealing with, the basic acs-objects model and the glued-to-the-site-of-the-box CR object model.

Interesting things to think about ...

I volunteer someone else to write the upgrade scripts! :)

Why would you want to derive a site_node folder from an acs-object folder? What's a use-case where you would need a CR folder or acs-object folder that isn't part of the site-map?

To me it's just one hierarchy, and that *is* the site-map. If the objects in your folders don't show up on the site, what are they doing there in the first place?

Of course, that means that if you want a structure of CR subfolders such as for file-storage, they'd also have to be part of the site map, but wouldn't it be useful to have them show up there?

(PS: Site map here refers to the site_nodes table, not the current /admin/site-map page, which I find horrible, and which we should then fix.)

/Lars

In a CMS you typically have content components that don't really meaningfully show up anywhere on their own other than within the CMS itself (like stock images for example). Also, content producers and editors probably want to have a flat view of existing articles,authors etc. rather than digging through the heirarchy defined on the public side. And finally, where something ends up being placed on the site may not happen until well after the content item is created. It's easier to implement a sensible presentation layer for content generation by having folders organized by content type and then mapping them into the site map

I think that was the thinking behind divorcing the CR heirarchy from the site map (well that and it was developed by the rebel code conclave).

Look at etp now. I would like to see all the etp pages, when were they last updated, are there unpublished revisions, etc. but right now it's extremely site-map-centric. You have to know where where in the site to look to find pages and there is no easy way to reuse content components.

Of course etp solves a deliberately small problem and does not claim to be a general CMS for content generation and it's certainly possible to be site-map-centric and still cater to the workflow/UI you would want for publishers and editors but there seems to be a tradeoff between simplicity on the content presentation side for simplicity on the content generation side and I think the later might be the more difficult to address.

Jeff, we're not contradicting each other.

Stock images: Sure. Would it hurt if they're available to people with proper permissions under /cms/assets/whatnot?

ETP pages/flat view: Just because content items are available under their natural URL doesn't mean they aren't *also* available in a list view from an admin page.

Placing content: Same thing, the content item could belong to the admin UI package at first, then when you're ready, you move it to the right place.

I might be wrong, and any solution that brings us closer to where we ultimately want to be is an improvement. I just want to make sure it's given due consideration.

/Lars