Development Discussion Board

I'm not sure I get that, if it is a method, then why have the prefix? To avoid having methods accidentally registered as hook, especially if a MOD adds custom hooks - the actual naming convention can be changed, naturally. I'd strip the _class suffix from the filename. No namespaces in PHP5.2 yet, ...

Version 2 Diff for events: https://github.com/p/phpbb3/compare/develop...feature%2Fhooks Diff for hook locations: https://github.com/p/phpbb3/compare/feature%2Fhooks...feature%2Fledges-2 Pull request and comments: https://github.com/phpbb/phpbb3/pull/551 Version 1 General Hook Architecture of phpBB...

Indeed, HoL: your proposal is about calling functions from within the template. That's already covered by the PHP tag in the template syntax - functionality- and security -wise , there's nothing to be gained by adding a dedicated syntax IMHO. My proposal is about injecting template code from within ...

nn- wrote:How would you handle two mods supplying data for the same NAME?

How would the template know that a mod supplies such data? Which mod supplies the data?

All MODs providing input for a region are called, their snippets concatenated.

It is a rather frequent nuisance that MODs need to add a snipped to the template, complicating the installation on styles other than the default. To overcome this limitation, I propose the introduction of a new kind of template variable: A pre-compile insertion region., "<!-- REGION: {NAME} -->...

The 3.0 template system moves far too much logic into the template. It also is hugely redundant, with similar HTML artifacts used over and over again. My intention for future template systems is to be able to just define the key building blocks of the page, with the system taking care of the rest. T...

Considering that the template system for 4.0 is unlikely to use 3.0-esque constructs, this is a bit too specific for the current discussion.

The option to have a different login name is almost certainly in. It might make its entry as a 3.1 auth plugin, but that's pending at the moment. For 4.0, this is a far too specific feature request at this point in time, as we are primarily concerned about the high-level architecture.

Frankly, I have yet to see such a thing as a "secure HTML parser". It simply doesn't exist, which is the very nature of HTML. Even worse, it would still be bbcode, but masquerading as HTML. Consider that style classes etc have to be added to the entered HTML, url re-writing has to be done,...

I would push this very far back. The inclusion of an actual editor is javascript development not inherently linked to the core. There is one aspect that needs attention: How can custom bbcodes be designed so that an eventual editor can support them. All other questions, especially which editor to us...