[theme-reviewers] pluggable functions

[Chip Bennett]

Which is part of why everything a Theme adds to the namespace must be
uniquely prefixed, ideally using theme-slug.

On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Shinra Web Holdings <
shinrawebholdings at gmail.com> wrote:

> Not specifically, but a namespace collision with a plugin could
> potentially do some really weird things.
> On Oct 27, 2012 3:01 PM, "Kirk Wight" <kwight at kwight.ca> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/b3aa308c/attachment-0001.htm>