[RFC] Improve embedding through prefixing names

[naderman]

One of the problems with embedding phpBB in Drupal, is that both define a function called user_add. To avoid these problems in the future, we should compile a list of function names likely to conflict and do the following with them:

• Rename the function to include a phpbb_ prefix
• Change all calls to the method in core code to use phpbb_
• Add a conditional function definition of the old function name to keep MODs working:

  Code: Select all

  if (!function_exists('user_add'))
  {
      function user_add()
      {
          return call_user_func_array('phpbb_user_add', func_get_args());
      }
  }

This way, most boards with MODs will continue to work. If you require compatability with 3rd party software, you will have to use compatible MODs too.

In addition we might want to encourage MODs to move to the new function names, by throwing E_NOTICE in the compatability function in debug mode. Thoughts on this?

[imkingdavid]

Because most MODs will likely break (afaik) between 3.0 and 3.1, why not just go ahead and rename such "problem" functions to include the phpbb_ prefix by default without worrying about MOD breakage?

EDIT:

This way, most boards with MODs will continue to work. If you require compatability with 3rd party software, you will have to use compatible MODs too.

In addition we might want to encourage MODs to move to the new function names, by throwing E_NOTICE in the compatability function in debug mode. Thoughts on this?

Yes. We could require MODs that add new functions in the global scope to prefix them with phpbb_%mod%_ (where %mod%) is a "short name" for the MOD.

Coincidentally, I have been looking at drupal recently and have been doing some initial work on a small drupal module (aka extension). The way they do their hooks in they require a file in drupal/sites/all/modules/ that is module_name.module. Any function in that file that is prefixed with module_name_ and is found as a hook is then called in the main program. (for instance, if a hook called "foobar" is called, it will search enabled modules for functions called %module_name_%foobar).

At the very least, we could require MODs and extensions in 3.1 to require some sort of prefix, whether phpbb_ and the mod short name or just one or the other, to prevent compatibility issues.

[MichaelC]

I thought all functions were being renamed in 3.1 to have a phpbb_ prefix?

And as ikd said, all MODs will need a lot of changes to work with hooks, extensions etc. so I wouldn't have though breaking MODs was a worry?

Yes. We could require MODs that add new functions in the global scope to prefix them with phpbb_%mod%_ (where %mod%) is a "short name" for the MOD.

+1

[imkingdavid]

I thought all functions were being renamed in 3.1 to have a phpbb_ prefix?

Only new ones, so far.

EDIT: As an alternative, and this may be too big of a change for 3.1, but I think I remember reading that 3.2 is going to require PHP 5.3. So we could implement namespaces and remove the possibility of conflicts.

[MichaelC]

I thought all functions were being renamed in 3.1 to have a phpbb_ prefix?

Only new ones, so far.

EDIT: As an alternative, and this may be too big of a change for 3.1, but I think I remember reading that 3.2 is going to require PHP 5.3. So we could implement namespaces and remove the possibility of conflicts.

From the looks of what I can see so far, 3.2 has less changes that affect modifications so maybe it would be better to have all the biggest changes for mod authors in 3.1?

[brunoais]

Well... I never liked the namespacing feature in PHP. It does not seem to addup with the rest of the php programming concept. I don't know how to explain this better, though.

[callumacrae]

EDIT: As an alternative, and this may be too big of a change for 3.1, but I think I remember reading that 3.2 is going to require PHP 5.3. So we could implement namespaces and remove the possibility of conflicts.

-1, leave it for 4.0: too big a change

[imkingdavid]

EDIT: As an alternative, and this may be too big of a change for 3.1, but I think I remember reading that 3.2 is going to require PHP 5.3. So we could implement namespaces and remove the possibility of conflicts.

-1, leave it for 4.0: too big a change

Fair enough, just tossing around the idea.

In any case, I think it would be reasonable to require MODs to use either phpbb_%mod%_ or just phpbb_ for functions in global scope and classes, and to prefix most/all phpBB functions with phpbb_, as is already required for new functions, for 3.1. If we can get it done for 3.1, it won't be as big of a headache for 3.2, eh?

EDIT: Ticket

[MichaelC]

So all or some of the functions?