[RFC|Merged] General Hook Architecture of phpBB3.1

These requests for comments/change have lead to an implemented feature that has been successfully merged into the 3.1/Ascraeus branch. Everything listed in this forum will be available in phpBB 3.1.

User avatar
MichaelC
Website Team Leader
Website Team Leader
Posts: 888
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 6:29 pm

Re: [RFC|Accepted] General Hook Architecture of phpBB3.1

Postby MichaelC » Sun Mar 11, 2012 10:30 am

(10:26:25 AM) unknownbliss: What should I call the column? Array keys?
(10:26:47 AM) nn-: i don't think we settled on terminology there
(10:26:51 AM) unknownbliss: ok
(10:27:26 AM) nn-: is "data variables" confusing?
(10:27:37 AM) nn-: data keys?
(10:27:49 AM) nn-: arguments?
(10:27:59 AM) unknownbliss: Data Arguments?
(10:28:00 AM) nn-: i guess you can call them arguments as arguments can be both in and out
(10:28:04 AM) unknownbliss: ok
(10:28:11 AM) nn-: or parameters
(10:28:14 AM) nn-: i don't know
(10:28:21 AM) nn-: maybe solicit some other opinions
Formerly known as Unknown Bliss
psoTFX wrote: I went with Olympus because as I said to the teams ... "It's been one hell of a hill to climb"
No unsolicited PMs please except for quotes.

User avatar
brunoais
Registered User
Posts: 933
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 3:55 pm

Re: [RFC|Accepted] General Hook Architecture of phpBB3.1

Postby brunoais » Sun Mar 11, 2012 6:21 pm

^
parameters

User avatar
MichaelC
Website Team Leader
Website Team Leader
Posts: 888
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 6:29 pm

Re: [RFC|Accepted] General Hook Architecture of phpBB3.1

Postby MichaelC » Tue Mar 13, 2012 12:08 pm

Oleg wrote:
igorw wrote:The template hooks (which are really quite different to the PHP hooks) is loosely described in [RFC] hook_template_snippet.
I read that again and I think I will rename RUNHOOKS to REGION.
I think run hooks is more descriptive.
Formerly known as Unknown Bliss
psoTFX wrote:
I went with Olympus because as I said to the teams ... "It's been one hell of a hill to climb"

No unsolicited PMs please except for quotes.

User avatar
nickvergessen
3.1 Release Manager
3.1 Release Manager
Posts: 723
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 11:54 am
Location: Stuttgart, Germany
Contact:

Re: [RFC|Accepted] General Hook Architecture of phpBB3.1

Postby nickvergessen » Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:04 pm

It would be very handy for the MOD authors, if the files for template hooks are not in template/ but in some kind of sub-directory. I'd suggest to add template/hooks/

For the record, I'd also prefer RUNHOOK over REGION
Member of the Development-TeamNo Support via PM

Oleg
Posts: 1150
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 2:38 am
Contact:

Re: [RFC|Accepted] General Hook Architecture of phpBB3.1

Postby Oleg » Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:06 pm

What about using LEDGE instead of RUNHOOKS/REGION?

User avatar
MichaelC
Website Team Leader
Website Team Leader
Posts: 888
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 6:29 pm

Re: [RFC|Accepted] General Hook Architecture of phpBB3.1

Postby MichaelC » Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:08 pm

nickvergessen wrote:It would be very handy for the MOD authors, if the files for template hooks are not in template/ but in some kind of sub-directory. I'd suggest to add template/hooks/
+1
Oleg wrote:What about using LEDGE instead of RUNHOOKS/REGION?
+1
Formerly known as Unknown Bliss
psoTFX wrote:
I went with Olympus because as I said to the teams ... "It's been one hell of a hill to climb"

No unsolicited PMs please except for quotes.

Oleg
Posts: 1150
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 2:38 am
Contact:

Re: [RFC|Accepted] General Hook Architecture of phpBB3.1

Postby Oleg » Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:02 am

I implemented template-specific template hooks:

https://github.com/p/phpbb3/compare/cdf5f7...64ab21

This works in the absence of template inheritance.

(00:39:10) nn-: now, the question is how that should interact with inheritance
(00:39:18) nn-: say i have bluesilver based on prosilver
(00:39:48) nn-: if my extension hooks prosilver and user has bluesilver as their style should my extension be run?
(00:40:11) nn-: what if bluesilver requires a different edition of my extension, how do i run bluesilver version while not running prosilver version?
(00:40:50) nn-: what if bluesilver version was written by a third party and the board uses both prosilver and bluesilver, in which case both my extension exists (having no bluesilver templates) and a separate extension exists with bluesilver templates only, which templates should be rendered?

I added template-specific template hooks to https://github.com/p/phpbb3-ext-overall-header-addition, along with usage instructions.

For some reason my all hook does not appear to be rendered in acp, need to investigate that.

User avatar
MichaelC
Website Team Leader
Website Team Leader
Posts: 888
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 6:29 pm

Re: [RFC|Accepted] General Hook Architecture of phpBB3.1

Postby MichaelC » Fri Mar 16, 2012 11:07 am

Docs are all done except for how to create a hook which I'm waiting for an example hook from oleg/igorw first.

Ledges are currently being worked on by Joas and I and currently we have added plenty.

At the moment some work is being done on the ledges request forum to rename and utilise it.

A topic should probably be posted over on phpBB.com in MOD Writers about ledge requests?
Formerly known as Unknown Bliss
psoTFX wrote:
I went with Olympus because as I said to the teams ... "It's been one hell of a hill to climb"

No unsolicited PMs please except for quotes.

User avatar
MichaelC
Website Team Leader
Website Team Leader
Posts: 888
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 6:29 pm

Re: [RFC|Accepted] General Hook Architecture of phpBB3.1

Postby MichaelC » Fri Mar 16, 2012 9:27 pm

We have a core. prefix for php ledges but not for template ledges. I propose we have a core_ prefix for template ledges.

Thoughts?
Formerly known as Unknown Bliss
psoTFX wrote:
I went with Olympus because as I said to the teams ... "It's been one hell of a hill to climb"

No unsolicited PMs please except for quotes.


Return to “[3.1/Ascraeus] Merged RFCs”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo Slurp and 6 guests