Template engine changes to allow for structure flexibility

[DavidIQ]

You do know that even if the structure is split into many files, as suggested in this topic, template files would take up less than 1% of a user's server quota right? Server space is not an issue anyone needs to be concerned with when it comes to what is covered in this topic. And how permissions are even remotely relevant to this topic is beyond me...

[MichaelC]

The question is, do we even want multi-inheritance, from my dev perspective I'd say no. If you inherit from a stlye that does something odd, just overwrite it again. There is no need for having 2 inheritance parents.
And as for custom structure, just make a good default one? You can structure your files like you want, if you just add a file with the original name and do a <!-- INCLUDE fancy/* -->

Both do not make up the negative impact from having the huge list, for me

Please can you summarise a list of these negative points as so far the only thing you've said is that it could cause merge conflicts when two new templates are added in the same place whereas we've listed numerous advantages to doing things this way.

Can we also please all keep open minds and have reasoned debate as I've seen in a couple of places you saying 'This must go' or 'This is not happening' with no reasoning - I'm open to being convinced this is not the best course of action however to be convinced there needs to be a valid alternative solution which solves the problems we've highlighted previously in this topic or a number of solid disadvantages which outweigh the advantages beyond 'it could cause merge conflicts very occasionally'.

[Marshalrusty]

developer11, nobody is suggesting increasing the number of files in phpBB by orders of magnitude, which is the only way for disk quotas to apply anywhere in this discussion. All modern filesystems supporting storing billions or trillions of files. If your hosting requires you to worry about file counts on the order of thousands, then the problem is the hosting.

I also see that a good number of your posts are quite aggressive. You should reconsider how you're approaching informing us of your opinion, as it's coming off as hardly constructive.

[developer11]

developer11, nobody is suggesting increasing the number of files in phpBB by orders of magnitude, which is the only way for disk quotas to apply anywhere in this discussion. All modern filesystems supporting storing billions or trillions of files. If your hosting requires you to worry about file counts on the order of thousands, then the problem is the hosting.

I also see that a good number of your posts are quite aggressive. You should reconsider how you're approaching informing us of your opinion, as it's coming off as hardly constructive.

Im not aggressive (your statement) cause I do offend noone here (nor elsewhere). Im just explaining my point of view/how should things be.
I just do not like many aspects of phpbb development process and Im expressing it.

[Pony99CA]

Im not aggressive (your statement) cause I do offend noone here (nor elsewhere). Im just explaining my point of view/how should things be.

I don't want to get too far off-topic here, but there's a difference between "aggressive" and "offensive". You can be aggressive without being offensive, and vice versa.

For example, in this post of yours, you said that this was a "must-do ASAP" change, that the current way was "absurd" and that not fixing it was "scandalous". That's not only aggressive, it could be offensive (especially the "scandalous" part).

I just do not like many aspects of phpbb development process and Im expressing it.

Fine, but as far as we know, you're a newbie here (just registered yesterday). So to come and say to "do this ASAP" is pretty aggressive. It doesn't mean that you're wrong, just that you're not presenting your case in a way to win people over.

And, of course, all of that is your opinion; others may have different ideas of how things should be.

Steve

[developer11]

@Pony99CA:

for me, if you are aggresive you are offending others, and vice versa.
Yes its my point of view how thins should be - Im just expressing it.....

[Sven2157]

To give some example of what I mean (this is just an early WIP, please don't look into it too much), just imagine having to refactor prosilver to something like this:

1.png

PayBas,

I use phpStorm, as it looks like you do too ( maybe WebStorm ). How did you associate HTML files with TWIG? Did you just redefine all HTML to use TWIG syntax?

I have never used phpBB before, and am working on a project that has this. I was pleasantly surprised to see that 3.1 silently integrated Twig. However I can't get code completion, nor syntax highlighting, to work, because the files are all .html and not .html.twig. If I change the overall_header.html to overall_header.html.twig, it breaks the site, but give the aforementioned result.

I for one am very pleased to see the switch to Twig. It is one of the reasons ( Symfony and Composer are two other ), that I have recommended the switch to phpBB >3.1+ to others in my development circle.

[brunoais]

@Sven2157
Use hardlinks.
Make hardlinks between the files. For example:
Make a hardlink between:
overall_header.html
and:
overall_header.html.twig

How you do hardlinks depends on your OS.

[Sven2157]

@brunoais

Thanks for the reply. I actually posted that on April 4, 2015. It was held for moderation, until the other day - Tuesday, April 13, 2015. That never actually occurred to me; pretty clever.

In my case, I found a solution a couple days after I posted. I just associated all HTML files as TWIG. This has no affect on regular HTML files, and since I also use Laravel, the BLADE template engine uses PHP extensions ( or with some quick changes, can use TWIG, as well ).

Not sure how it will play out with Angular JS though ... Guess I will have to see if I cross that bridge.

Thanks!

- Sven2157

[brunoais]

I advice you not to use AngularJS with phpBB. AngularJS is meant for client-side applications. IIRC, it also forces breaking web pages' HTML (which I hate).