Tim Hicks wrote:
But I get the feeling that it's not something you'd do yourself ("If you really want to work it this way...") - why is that and do you have alternative site structures?
In the past, I've used plain File objects when I needed a quick & dirty content object. This works for me since I don't try to traverse them directly, only refer to them. By this I mean that I might have a Folder 'news' that contains Files like '2002082101', but I never try to send the user to "http://.../news/2002082101". I'll have a news page at "http://.../news", and if a user is managing a piece of content, they'll be at "http://.../news/edit?nid=2002082101".
Should I presume you term File objects as 'quick and dirty content objects' coz when you don't want to be 'quick and dirty', you roll your own?
Obviously, this may not work for you if you have a different model for user interaction with content. If you can, I advise using the CMF.
Thanks for the input. For me, the slate is actually fairly clean, so I could potentially use such a system as you describe. As for the CMF, I'm not a convert yet, so I think I'll steer clear for now. cheers, tim