Drop distinction between style name and style path

Note: We are moving the topics of this forum and it will be deleted at some point

Publish your own request for comments/change or patches for the next version of phpBB. Discuss the contributions and proposals of others. Upcoming releases are 3.2/Rhea and 3.3.
Oleg
Posts: 1150
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 2:38 am
Contact:

Re: [RFC] Drop distinction between style name and style path

Post by Oleg »

This is getting merged as soon as I fix it.
User avatar
Arty
Former Team Member
Posts: 985
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2002 2:36 pm
Location: Mars
Contact:

Re: [RFC] Drop distinction between style name and style path

Post by Arty »

User avatar
Pony99CA
Registered User
Posts: 986
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 2:35 am
Location: Hollister, CA
Contact:

Re: [RFC] Drop distinction between style name and style path

Post by Pony99CA »

So which name will show in the ACP -- the directory name or the "pretty" name? An admin uploaded the files, so he probably knows both, but what about admins without full access?

The UCP will have the pretty name, of course.

Steve
Silicon Valley Pocket PC (http://www.svpocketpc.com)
Creator of manage_bots and spoof_user (ask me)
Need hosting for a small forum with full cPanel & MySQL access? Contact me or PM me.
User avatar
Arty
Former Team Member
Posts: 985
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2002 2:36 pm
Location: Mars
Contact:

Re: [RFC] Drop distinction between style name and style path

Post by Arty »

There won't be "pretty" name. Styles will only have directory name.
Oleg
Posts: 1150
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 2:38 am
Contact:

Re: [RFC] Drop distinction between style name and style path

Post by Oleg »

naderman wrote:If we want to, we can probably still load some display name from the config file on the acp/ucp pages, but I really think that the standard way to refer to a style should simply be a proper directory name. We should definitely not store the display name in the db or use it to reference to the style anywhere other than to display it to a user.
Think about a style named "Christmas 2012". Would you rather show users that or "christmas-2012" (remember case insensitive filesystems)?

Another example: any style on a non-English board that has a widely known non-English name. Normally either the name cannot be translated correctly to English or the English name won't make sense to users because they don't speak English.

The current PR removes display name entirely. If possible I would prefer it to be retained, possibly loaded from style cfg file whenever it is needed (acp/ucp display).

Also this brings up a question of what to do with styles sharing the same display name. Perhaps in acp styles should be displayed with both "style name" and display name together (e.g. "christmas-2012 (Christmas 2012)" and in ucp just show the display name on the assumption that admins won't be confusing their users.
User avatar
Pony99CA
Registered User
Posts: 986
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2009 2:35 am
Location: Hollister, CA
Contact:

Re: [RFC] Drop distinction between style name and style path

Post by Pony99CA »

I thought that the display name ("pretty name") was being kept, which was why I asked what the ACP would show. I agree that a display name should be kept.

Regarding name collisions, don't styles have a vendor name in 3.1 like extensions? If not, maybe they should. Or does the Styles team prevent duplicate names (which only helps with validated styles, of course)?

Steve
Silicon Valley Pocket PC (http://www.svpocketpc.com)
Creator of manage_bots and spoof_user (ask me)
Need hosting for a small forum with full cPanel & MySQL access? Contact me or PM me.
User avatar
Arty
Former Team Member
Posts: 985
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2002 2:36 pm
Location: Mars
Contact:

Re: [RFC] Drop distinction between style name and style path

Post by Arty »

Users rarely see style names. Almost always they use whatever default style is selected, so they have nothing to refer to.

The only ones who see style names are administrators. If style name is kept, it is possible to create confusion.

For example, style christmas-2013 requires parent style christmas-2012. If name is kept and christmas-2012 is called "Christmas 2012" or, even worse, "Christmas", it will only cause confusion. Admin will see that style requires christmas-2012, but he doesn't see such style in his styles list because it shows pretty name instead.

Another example, using same as above style names. Admin decided its a good idea to rename directory christmas-2012 to christmas and kept pretty name the same: "Christmas 2012". Installing style christmas-2013 requires christmas-2012, which no longer exists but style with similar name is shown in admin control panel. Admin will be confused.

So I don't see point in keeping names just to display them in admin control panel. It serves no purpose and will only cause confusion.
Oleg
Posts: 1150
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 2:38 am
Contact:

Re: [RFC] Drop distinction between style name and style path

Post by Oleg »

Arty wrote:Users rarely see style names. Almost always they use whatever default style is selected, so they have nothing to refer to.
Except for the times when they select their style, which is what is being discussed here.
Arty wrote: The only ones who see style names are administrators. If style name is kept, it is possible to create confusion.
No, it isn't. The style name is shown first and the display name is shown second.
Arty wrote: Admin decided its a good idea to rename directory christmas-2012 to christmas and kept pretty name the same: "Christmas 2012". Installing style christmas-2013 requires christmas-2012, which no longer exists but style with similar name is shown in admin control panel.
You need to consistently use the same UI. The required style will never be "Christmas 2012" because that is the display name. Required style will be "christmas-2012", which should be indicated as missing in the case you are describing.
User avatar
imkingdavid
Registered User
Posts: 1050
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2009 12:06 pm

Re: [RFC] Drop distinction between style name and style path

Post by imkingdavid »

Arty wrote:Users rarely see style names. Almost always they use whatever default style is selected, so they have nothing to refer to.

The only ones who see style names are administrators. If style name is kept, it is possible to create confusion.

For example, style christmas-2013 requires parent style christmas-2012. If name is kept and christmas-2012 is called "Christmas 2012" or, even worse, "Christmas", it will only cause confusion. Admin will see that style requires christmas-2012, but he doesn't see such style in his styles list because it shows pretty name instead.

Another example, using same as above style names. Admin decided its a good idea to rename directory christmas-2012 to christmas and kept pretty name the same: "Christmas 2012". Installing style christmas-2013 requires christmas-2012, which no longer exists but style with similar name is shown in admin control panel. Admin will be confused.

So I don't see point in keeping names just to display them in admin control panel. It serves no purpose and will only cause confusion.
I disagree. I, not unfrequently, do look at the list of styles available on boards when I join them and pick whichever I like the most. So I see the style names, and I would consider the site incredibly more professional if their style was named "Christmas 2012" instead of "christmas-2012". Also, how often do you think an admin is going to rename the style directory, especially after we have style installation hooked up to composer so the admin doesn't even need to touch the directory in the first place?

IMO, the pretty name should remain.
I do custom MODs. PM for a quote!
View My: MODs | Portfolio
Please do NOT contact for support via PM or email.
Remember, the enemy's gate is down.
User avatar
Arty
Former Team Member
Posts: 985
Joined: Wed Mar 06, 2002 2:36 pm
Location: Mars
Contact:

Re: [RFC] Drop distinction between style name and style path

Post by Arty »

Good points. So, RFC rejected then? Everything is already works by directory names, pretty names only remain in acp and ucp, so this RFC becomes pointless.
Post Reply