I like naderman's new suggestion.
I'll also rename RUNHOOKS to EVENT now to get it done with.
Also if everyone agrees with naderman's implementation I'll change all existing events to use it.
[RFC|Merged] General Hook Architecture of phpBB3.1
Re: [RFC|Accepted] General Hook Architecture of phpBB3.1
Formerly known as Unknown Bliss
No unsolicited PMs please except for quotes.psoTFX wrote: I went with Olympus because as I said to the teams ... "It's been one hell of a hill to climb"
- nickvergessen
- Former Team Member
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 11:54 am
- Location: Stuttgart, Germany
- Contact:
Re: [RFC|Accepted] General Hook Architecture of phpBB3.1
I liked the extract() on a new line more, as you saw $event at the line beginning which helps finding it, but aslong as its called something with events (nadermans latest suggestion) i'm also fine with it.
Member of the Development-Team — No Support via PM
Re: [RFC|Accepted] General Hook Architecture of phpBB3.1
(11:20:10) nn-: naderman: my only issue with that is people accidentally screwing up the magic bits
(11:20:31) nn-: but i guess all of *that* code will be reviewed by us making it potentially a non-issue
(11:21:17) nn-: oh just noticed method rename
(11:22:14) nn-: yes i wanted a different function name for the version that filters
(11:22:21) nn-: and potentially has a different api
(11:22:36) nn-: trigger_event seems to be a good choice
(11:20:31) nn-: but i guess all of *that* code will be reviewed by us making it potentially a non-issue
(11:21:17) nn-: oh just noticed method rename
(11:22:14) nn-: yes i wanted a different function name for the version that filters
(11:22:21) nn-: and potentially has a different api
(11:22:36) nn-: trigger_event seems to be a good choice
Re: [RFC|Accepted] General Hook Architecture of phpBB3.1
I personally prefer the initial more explicit version, but renaming the special method to something other than `dispatch` addresses my main concern of changing the semantics.
Re: [RFC|Accepted] General Hook Architecture of phpBB3.1
RUNHOOKS
is now EVENT
All php events have been updated to naderman's suggestion and all template hooks to
EVENT
Formerly known as Unknown Bliss
No unsolicited PMs please except for quotes.psoTFX wrote: I went with Olympus because as I said to the teams ... "It's been one hell of a hill to climb"
- nickvergessen
- Former Team Member
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 11:54 am
- Location: Stuttgart, Germany
- Contact:
Re: [RFC|Accepted] General Hook Architecture of phpBB3.1
On question that came up recently is, who we are going to deal with hooks while installing/updating(3.1.0 to 3.1.1) the board.
F.e. when we add a user it might be good to have the hooks running.
F.e. when we add a user it might be good to have the hooks running.
Member of the Development-Team — No Support via PM
Re: [RFC|Accepted] General Hook Architecture of phpBB3.1
Why would you add a user with updating? Personally I think its a bad idea allowing hooks to run while updating.nickvergessen wrote:On question that came up recently is, who we are going to deal with hooks while installing/updating(3.1.0 to 3.1.1) the board.
F.e. when we add a user it might be good to have the hooks running.
Formerly known as Unknown Bliss
No unsolicited PMs please except for quotes.psoTFX wrote: I went with Olympus because as I said to the teams ... "It's been one hell of a hill to climb"
- nickvergessen
- Former Team Member
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 11:54 am
- Location: Stuttgart, Germany
- Contact:
Re: [RFC|Accepted] General Hook Architecture of phpBB3.1
Well we added some bots latly and when we add a bot we call user_add
Member of the Development-Team — No Support via PM
Re: [RFC|Accepted] General Hook Architecture of phpBB3.1
Was this done? If not I'm inclined to agree to add core_ for template events.Unknown Bliss wrote:We have a core. prefix for php ledges but not for template ledges. I propose we have a core_ prefix for template ledges.
Thoughts?