[theme-reviewers] Plugins within Themes

Sat Jan 4 18:22:54 UTC 2014

I have to admit that as a strong believer in keeping plugins and themes separate I actually see no problem with these plugins being in the theme. The biggest reason to separate is to make it so that when a user switches themes they lose nothing. The options framework I believe is perfectly acceptable. It is designed to help theme developers create option pages. The less to CSS I think is very appropriate as it helps with editing the stylesheet. The drag and drop I think is possibly up for debate. 
However I think in the debate on where it stands is adhering to the spirit of the rule which is the idea that the user can change themes without losing data or tracking (ie favicons, analytics coverage, entire posts made with custom post types). If plugin data doesn't cause the user to lose anything when changing themes including admin options not under the theme options pages, then it is something in the grey area of the rule and could possibly be considered into the repository with those functions. Just my opinion though.

> On Jan 4, 2014, at 10:49 AM, emin ozlem <eminozlem at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I'm not a member of the review team, but to express my opinion as a user and a theme dev; I agree the extent of plugin territory is too restrictive. But from what i see here this in particular is not a case of plugin territory but a different one. It's not about "providing functionality that falls into plugin territory" but  about if we can "ship plugins bundled with theme". And I would really like a yes or no answer on this one.
> 
> Because there are certain functionalities that i would too like to provide with my theme that definitely fall into plugin territory (favoriting, sharing posts etc.) So are we allowed to ship plugins with themes, just like we do with widgets ?
> 
> 
> 2014/1/4 Edward Caissie <edward.caissie at gmail.com>
>> The point is, I'm not really a fan of drawing that line ... if there is a black and white definition of what, without consideration, makes for "plugin territory" then let's have it posted. Then we can all put our jackboots on and kick anything and everything that even toes that lines to the curb. No appealing it, no discussing it ... those are the rules deal with it.
>> 
>> Just in case its not clear, I am very much against that ideology as I think we are taking it too far. In this particular case, the additional code (it's really not important that it already exists as a plugin) offers a "cool" feature via the theme that provides an end-user a reason to support that theme. Sure the code could be completely left out and the theme would provide the bare necessities of presentation output but I think it is much more important to keep the possibilities open if there is zero change impact involved with the code.
>> 
>> Basically you're saying, sorry theme authors, you are not allowed to enhance core functionality ... no matter what you might offer, or how good the idea is ... only plugin authors are allowed to do that, in a plugin only. Thanks but no thanks we don't want to see your innovation or creativity implemented with a theme, except of course if it is presentation related only.
>> 
>> There are certain kinds of functionality I do agree should best be implemented as a plugin, but not every functionality should be relegated to plugin territory ... otherwise, lets just point all the theme authors to a cookie cutter code template and Zen Garden for inspiration.
>> 
>> Like I wrote, I'm not here to argue the point ... I'm just expressing my opinions on the matter. Others can agree or disagree with these ideas and carry on with the discussion as a community to reach a common goal of improvement.
>> 
>> Edward Caissie
>> aka Cais.
>> 
>> 
>>> On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 12:02 AM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net> wrote:
>>> But it's a valid discussion: where would you draw the line, if not at something that has zero front-end impact? What other back-end/site functionality would be permissible in Themes, merely because it doesn't present "lock-in"?
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 11:54 PM, Edward Caissie <edward.caissie at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I'm not going to argue the point ... I gave my opinion (even as an admin) and I still stand behind my initial thoughts on this.
>>>> 
>>>> Edward Caissie
>>>> aka Cais.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 11:43 PM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net> wrote:
>>>>> The presentation-vs-functionality line is not limited to "lock in". The feature has absolutely nothing to do with presentation of user content (in fact, the Plugin has zero front-end impact at all - something that should be a considerable red flag regarding its appropriateness within a Theme), and is something that, should the user decide to use for the site, would be expected to remain when switching Themes. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 10:41 PM, Edward Caissie <edward.caissie at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 6:58 PM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> Drag-and-drop featured image is clearly site (admin) functionality ... 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Although this may be true; and, it really does not affect the "visual" aspect of the theme in the sense there already exists a core functionality that can be used, but since there is no lock-in effect (one of the primary reasons code is pushed into "plugin territory") I see no problem with this as a theme "feature". If @Ulrich had not brought forward / recognized the existing plugin's code I would not have looked twice at allowing it through based on it enhancing the core functionality.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Edward Caissie
>>>>>> aka Cais.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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/20140104/baf4f15e/attachment.html>