[TYPO3-dam-devel] Question: Is the suggestion of ce_flexform still needed?

[Francois Suter]

Hi,

> I am still bewildered. The patch just removes the suggestion of 
> ce_flexform in ext_emconf.php. But ext_tables.sql of dam will create the 
> field and the appropriate $TCA configuration can be found in can be 
> found in ext_tables.php

It's me who did the patch to remove the suggestion. I did this because 
the update script of the DAM was changed to automatically add the 
ce_flexform field if it didn't exist already. So the suggestion to 
install ce_flexform had become useless.

But I thought the ce_flexform field was used.

To answer Ingo's remark, no, the ce_flexform field has not been added in 
4.2. What was added in 4.2 is the possibility to use 2 keys to define 
which flexform definition is used in a flexform field. For tt_content 
those 2 keys are CType and list_type, which make it possible for any 
content element to use pi_flexform and not just for plug-ins (and table, 
which used the "default" key).

So in essence, if the DAM really needed a flexform field in tt_content, 
it could use the pi_flexform field.

> Is there any chance that someone coming from an older DAM installation 
> has some data in that field that need to be moved to somewhere else???
> If this is not the case people then could simply remove EXT ce_flexform 
> completely from there installations, just for clarity's sake

I looked through the code of the current DAM trunk (and extensions) and 
the only references I found to ce_flexform are the statements to create 
that field and the txdam_addCTypeFlexFormValue() mentioned by Uschi, 
that is located in the EXT:dam/tca_media_fields.php file.

I must say I don't really understand what's going on in that file, but 
it seems like ce_flexform is not used at all. Anyway with the changes in 
4.2 mentioned above, whatever was done in the past with ce_flexform (if 
ever) could be done in pi_flexform now.

I checked the site of one of my clients which uses DAM 1.0 quite 
extensively (3700+ records in tx_dam), with added extensions such as 
dam_ttcontent, dam_pages and dam_tvconnector. Not a single tt_record has 
anything in the ce_flexform field.

It really seems like we can drop it.

Cheers

-- 

Francois Suter
Cobweb Development Sarl - http://www.cobweb.ch