[theme-reviewers] Bundling Plugins

Mon May 2 15:49:52 UTC 2011

I would probably rather stick to the "graceful degradation" requirement that
Plugin-dependent Themes still function adequately even without use of the
Plugin.

In other words: I don't think there should probably be an try Plugin
*dependence* for Themes intended for general, public release. Such Themes
can be designed so that Plugins *enhance* functionality, of course.

Chip

On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 10:15 AM, Philip Walton <philip at philipwalton.com>wrote:

>  This is probably not feasible anytime in the near future, but it seems to
> me that plugin-dependency (and the appropriate dependency checking) should
> be a WordPress feature and not left open to the theme authors. Put another
> way, WordPress should have a way to inform the user that a particular theme
> cannot be activated if a particular plugin isn't already activated and
> installed.
>
> I'd bet we'd all agree that the best way to have plugin X's functionality
> within theme Y is for the user to actually download plugin X and theme Y.
> The only reason it's currently bundled with the theme is to not add any
> extra inconvenience/confusion and to minimize any additional roadblocks
> between downloading the theme and actually using it.
>
> I'm not suggesting this be implemented now, and we could certainly come up
> with best-practices in the meantime, but (if everyone agrees) perhaps we
> could push to have this implemented in core.
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
>
>
> On 5/2/11 6:56 AM, Chip Bennett wrote:
>
> I would suggest that bundled Plugins should keep their original function
> names, in order to perform proper function_exists/conflict-checking. Plugin
> *code* that is *incorporated* should adopt the Theme's function-naming
> convention.
>
>  (The same should hold true for textdomain. A bundled, translation-ready
> Plugin should already be declaring its own namespace, and should have
> appropriate language files included. Incorporated code, on the other hand,
> wouldn't - and so should have its translation also incorporated into the
> Theme.)
>
>  Also, in both cases, the bundling/incorporation must be noted, with
> proper copyright notice retained for the original code.
>
>  Beyond those points: establishing some "best practices" would be a good
> idea.
>
>  Chip
>
> On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 8:40 AM, Edward Caissie <edward.caissie at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> I would suggest putting forward a "best practice" method for bundling
>> plugins to insure their inclusion is relatively future proof. As noted,
>> generally speaking the code is GPL so that is the not the issues; but, keep
>> in mind, do the bundled plugins hold to the "namespace" and "textdomain"
>> requirements?
>>
>> Once the Theme author makes all of those adjustments the bundled plugins
>> may become no more than a very extensive functions.php file.
>>
>> Just some thoughts ...
>>
>>
>> Cais.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 8:29 AM, James Laws <jamielaws at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah, my comment sounded like a license issue but I really meant it from
>>> a repository/end user and support perspective.
>>>
>>>  James
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 8:28 AM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net>wrote:
>>>
>>>> From a GPL perspective, there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. The
>>>> question is: what is appropriate/best for the repository/end user?
>>>>
>>>>  Chip
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 7:05 AM, James Laws <jamielaws at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, I think this is a sticky subject. I'm not sure I'm comfortable
>>>>> with it honestly. It's one thing to offer your own custom theme options but
>>>>> it's another thing altogether to bundle, in most cases,
>>>>> someone else's plugin. Not sure how I feel about that.
>>>>>
>>>>>  James
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 8:01 AM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> This is probably a good topic for a wider discussion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  My initial thought is that *simple* Plugin functionality (e.g.
>>>>>> breadcrumbs) being *properly incorporated* (i.e. not simply being bundled,
>>>>>> and with proper function_exists checking for the original) is acceptable.
>>>>>> But at some point, the complexity of the Plugin (e.g. Yoast SEO) should
>>>>>> preclude it from being incorporated into the Theme.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  Chip
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 12:16 AM, Emil Uzelac <emil at themeid.com>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If the plugin is properly implemented there should be no problems.
>>>>>>> For example Coraline Theme implemented Theme options based on a plugin, so
>>>>>>> it's OK. Yoast Breadcrumbs are still current
>>>>>>> http://yoast.com/wordpress/breadcrumbs/ and I am not sure about
>>>>>>> http://themes.svn.wordpress.org/billions/1.1.2/core/plugins/seo-features.php.
>>>>>>> Now there is one thing to pay attention to and that is if they can be
>>>>>>> disabled (turned off) from i.e. Theme Options, just in case that user wants
>>>>>>> to use something else. I am sure that breadcrumb will not cause issues,
>>>>>>> however meta plugin could if the user installs any other SEO plugin. If one
>>>>>>> is "hardcoded" and other one installed as "real" plugin from plugins they
>>>>>>> could affect each other and or create double meta tags,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  Cheers,
>>>>>>> Emil
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  *----*
>>>>>>> *Emil Uzelac* | ThemeID | T: 224-444-0006 | Twitter: @EmilUzelac |
>>>>>>> E: emil at themeid.com | http://themeid.com
>>>>>>> Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler. - Albert
>>>>>>> Einstein
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 11:00 PM, Vicky Arulsingam <
>>>>>>> vicky.arulsingam at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  What's the official word on themes bundling plugins? The theme I'm
>>>>>>>> currently reviewing (http://themes.trac.wordpress.org/ticket/3398)
>>>>>>>> is including Yoast Breadcrumbs and Add Meta Tags as part of the download
>>>>>>>> package.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -----
>>>>>>>> Vicky Arulsingam
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> theme-reviewers mailing listtheme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.orghttp://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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/attachments/20110502/3d90274e/attachment-0001.htm>