<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Drupal Actions vs new core features</title>
	<atom:link href="http://rym.waglo.com/wordpress/2008/05/21/drupal-actions-vs-new-core-features/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://rym.waglo.com/wordpress/2008/05/21/drupal-actions-vs-new-core-features/</link>
	<description>Robin Millette / Waglo Labs / Penser Libre</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2008 23:39:31 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Robin</title>
		<link>http://rym.waglo.com/wordpress/2008/05/21/drupal-actions-vs-new-core-features/#comment-280249</link>
		<dc:creator>Robin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 May 2008 20:23:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rym.waglo.com/wordpress/?p=1480#comment-280249</guid>
		<description>Thanks for responding so quickly, John. I had the feeling Actions was somehow different since it got incorporated into core (or backported, should I say).

Should I roll out a patch (or many) to integrate token in actions? It doesn't have to be a dependency on token either, just make optional use of it.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for responding so quickly, John. I had the feeling Actions was somehow different since it got incorporated into core (or backported, should I say).</p>
<p>Should I roll out a patch (or many) to integrate token in actions? It doesn&#8217;t have to be a dependency on token either, just make optional use of it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John</title>
		<link>http://rym.waglo.com/wordpress/2008/05/21/drupal-actions-vs-new-core-features/#comment-280212</link>
		<dc:creator>John</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 May 2008 18:52:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://rym.waglo.com/wordpress/?p=1480#comment-280212</guid>
		<description>The 5.x-2.x version of actions is indeed getting development love. See &lt;a href="http://drupal.org/project/cvs/16013" rel="nofollow"&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.

As for naming it differently, I think not. Drupal's module naming conventions already distinguish them. A 5.x-1.x release is different from a 5.x-2.x release. See &lt;a href="http://drupal.org/node/93999" rel="nofollow"&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;. That's why the views module is not renamed to views 2.

Note that dependent modules can support both old and new style actions without conflict (though I strongly recommend going to Drupal-6-style actions, as I plan no more development for old-style actions).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The 5.x-2.x version of actions is indeed getting development love. See <a href="http://drupal.org/project/cvs/16013" rel="nofollow">here</a>.</p>
<p>As for naming it differently, I think not. Drupal&#8217;s module naming conventions already distinguish them. A 5.x-1.x release is different from a 5.x-2.x release. See <a href="http://drupal.org/node/93999" rel="nofollow">here</a>. That&#8217;s why the views module is not renamed to views 2.</p>
<p>Note that dependent modules can support both old and new style actions without conflict (though I strongly recommend going to Drupal-6-style actions, as I plan no more development for old-style actions).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
