[theme-reviewers] pluggable functions

[Kirk Wight]

Pluggable functions are pretty cool (particularly when you haven't got your
head around hooks yet), because you can change anything very easily. The
downside being, of course, you can change entire functions very easily.

I believe Core in general has backed away from pluggable functions in
favour of hooks (Core's only pluggable functions are now deprecated),
making me feel like we should encourage the same.

Does anyone know of any trouble that can come from having everything in
functions.php pluggable, including functions on hooks?

On 27 October 2012 15:51, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net> wrote:

> And by contrast, making custom function return/output values filterable is
> as good or better, depending on the circumstances. Depending on the
> amount/complexity of that output/returned content, I would consider using
> custom filters to be better practice than using pluggable functions.
>
> Of course, that's why it is good to make *reocmmendations* in Theme
> reviews at this point, rather than making *requirements* or "not-approving"
> Themes, based on pluggable-vs-filterable functions.
>
> Chip
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Philip M. Hofer (Frumph) <
> philip at frumph.net> wrote:
>
>>   Most functions being pluggable, i.e. function_exists (if that’s what
>> you’re referring to) is actually a good idea.
>>
>> This allows those functions to be re-written if necessary in the
>> functions.php of the child theme.
>>
>> I would consider this best practice.
>>
>>
>>
>>  *From:* Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net>
>> *Sent:* Saturday, October 27, 2012 12:22 PM
>> *To:* theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [theme-reviewers] pluggable functions
>>
>> Absent pre-existing guidelines, I would list your findings as
>> *recommended* only. It is always good to promote and to educate regarding
>> best practices, but we should only ever *not-approve* (even if "required
>> fix in next revision") those criteria that are stated in the guidelines.
>>
>> (That said: feel free to propose guidelines revisions wrt pluggable vs.
>> filterable functions!)
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Chip
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Kirk Wight <kwight at kwight.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> Howdy,
>>>
>>> I'm reviewing a theme that has made all functions in functions.php
>>> pluggable, including those on hooks. From what I understand, this won't
>>> break anything, but doesn't feel very "best practice"-y (anything on a hook
>>> can just be removed from the hook, making the pluggable code un-necessary).
>>>
>>> The theme was already approved, but I prefer to encourage the best
>>> practice; perhaps a "fix in next release" note is appropriate, rather than
>>> blocking approval?..
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/attachments/20121027/0591103d/attachment-0001.htm>