[theme-reviewers] Note to theme reviewers about settings in themes

[Darren Slatten]

I should also mention that I was assuming the DB clean-up would be an
automatic function triggered by the activate/deactivate hooks (i.e., a
"passive" solution).

On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 10:09 PM, Darren Slatten <darrenslatten at gmail.com>wrote:

> *The better solution would be activate/deactivate/delete hooks for Themes;
>> I tried to take that on for 3.2, but failed miserably. :/*
>>
>
> My previous message was more or less a solution to the problems that are
> inherent to activate/deactivate hooks--namely, deleting the theme's data
> from the DB would mean the theme options reset to their default values every
> time you deactivate-and-re-activate a theme. So yes, having those hooks
> available is a good idea, and it's something that would complement the
> solution I was talking about.
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 9:45 PM, Doug Stewart <zamoose at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> This is spot-on. If themes are restricted to one or maybe two options
>> in the DB, then what sense is there in creating such overbearing
>> complexity?
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 9:34 PM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net>
>> wrote:
>> > I must say: I don't really understand this rule suggestion. I don't see
>> the
>> > problem with setting default options, as opposed to adding in a bunch of
>> > conditional code in the Theme template files, in order to account for
>> unset
>> > options.
>> > I'm not even sure I would suggest this approach as a "best practice",
>> given
>> > the amount of additional code/processing that implementation would
>> require;
>> > setting default options is just more efficient.
>> >
>> > We already require that Themes use an options array as the single entry
>> in
>> > wp_options; so we're minimizing Theme DB clutter. It's true that Theme
>> > reviewers will have a lot of such DB entries; but I don't think we
>> should be
>> > making universal rules based on an incredibly niche sub-set of Theme
>> users.
>> > Chip
>> >
>> > On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Otto <otto at ottodestruct.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> This is just a note about a rule that I think should be added to the
>> >> theme review process:
>> >>
>> >> - Themes should not do anything to the database merely by virtue of
>> >> being activated.
>> >>
>> >> By that, I mean that having a theme check for a setting, like
>> >> get_option or get_theme_mod and then calling set_option or
>> >> set_theme_mod to set it to some default is wrong.
>> >>
>> >> Both get_option and get_theme_mod accept a second parameter of a
>> >> default setting. If I call get_option('whatever',123) and there is no
>> >> whatever option, then that will return 123.
>> >>
>> >> Use the defaults properly. Don't set them just because they're not
>> there.
>> >>
>> >> -Otto
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> theme-reviewers mailing list
>> >> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>> >> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > theme-reviewers mailing list
>> > theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>> > http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> -Doug
>> _______________________________________________
>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/attachments/20110612/2e1753f1/attachment.htm>