[TYPO3-hci] Less ways to do it...

[JoH]

>>> I've never used it, but I wonder why we can't treat it as a
>>> shortcut, and have a shortcut tab where you can set the target and
>>> some options, etc.
>>
>> It's technicall different and IMHO it is not easier for the user if
>> she has more options for "shortcut" rather than two clearly
>> understandable page types.
>
> Right, what about a page object, a shortcut object and a sysfolder
> object. 1 and 2 are visible in FE, 2 and 3 cannot store content
> elements. (I'm not talking about implementation here, so it might be
> page types or distinct objects)
>
> My point is that we should group options and remove the irrelevant
> ones where it makes sense. Why I can store records in shortcuts and
> external? Why don't shortcuts have meta data? What's the use of a
> general record storage in spacer or sysfolder or shortcut? Why can
> they be hidden?

You can store records in shortcuts and external to make sure
a) you don't lose them when switching the page type.
b) you can switch the page type without error messages

Sometimes it happens that you need a quick redirect to another page while
working on the content of a page.
You simply switch to "shortcut -> first subpage" edit the content and then
switch it back to "standard".

BTW:
What's the use of generalRecord Storage at all?
Did you ever try to insert two plugins depending on "General Record Storage
Page" but using different Sysfolders?

IMHO it's no good idea saying: Content is only allowed on pages and records
have to be in sysfolders.
I often use a sysfolder to store content elements that should never show
when someone enters the id of the folder.
These elements are used with "Insert Records" an a lot of different pages
then.

> I think I'll just make a list of grouped properties (= tab sections)
> and see which stuff fits to which object type.
> The other issue is making TYPO3 more strict in what object to accept
> in what context. It makes no sense to be able to choose a spacer as
> general record storage, or link target, or display content from a
> shortcut, etc. I hope you get my point...

No - since this is just your personal definition of what "makes sense".
IMHO we should leave that decision to the admins.

> PS: If you think this strictness is useless or hurts flexibility, just
> remember how often your users created news in the plugin page instead
> of the sysfolder for news, or created content elements in the
> shortcut page instead of the target page.

This strictness hurts flexibility if it can't be disabled/enabled by admin
users.
It's not up to us to decide what others might want.

What I would like is a configuration interface where you can set allowed
elements for different page types.
This would serve both of us very well, since it could be even more strict to
say:
The only element type allowed in this sysfolder is a news record!
We already got something similar for users and groups to allow editing of
different tables, so why not have the same thing for page types?

Joey

-- 
Wenn man keine Ahnung hat: Einfach mal Fresse halten!
(If you have no clues: simply shut your knob sometimes!)
Dieter Nuhr, German comedian
openBC: http://www.cybercraft.de