[geeklog-devel] Comments to templates

[LIMBURG, Mark]

Howdy

 > Moving the hard-coded HTML for the comments to template files has been a
 > pet peeve of mine over the course of 1.3.8 development. However, so far I
 > have been unsuccessful to come up with an implementation that I liked.

One idea I had was to use the template class from phpBB2 - which is a
variation on the same library we grabbed ours from.  As it standands, I'm
pretty sure it could be dropped right into GL1 with a minimum of fuss, as it
supports the way we currently do themes (as in straight replacement of
{placeholder} variables.  In addition, it also supports a simple form of
flow control and template blocks.

I am *offically* putting my hand up (as an option) to bring GL1 across to
this template class, as well as finish converting all hardcoded HTML into
templates and move the code to use the flow control and block system.  Lots
of good things flow down from this.

Now for the bad news ... if I were to do this, this would break existing
templates.  To help bring a resolution to this issue, I would a) convert all
the core templates across to the new system, b) take requests from any and
all comers to convert their theme to the new standard, and c) educate any
and all on the new process of creating themes.  Indeed, all the
documentation that phpBB2 have done could be leveraged as well as anything I
write.

I *really* want to do this ... as you all pretty much know, I've wanted to
do something along these lines for a long time.  As a theme developer (he
says putting on his Theme Author hat), moving to this type of environment
makes life easier and can do more.

If I were to go ahead with this, I would grab a copy of GL1 from CVS, do the
work to bring it across, and then a) place a working copy of the new codeset
on my website, and b) provide the codebase for the dev team to review BEFORE
it goes into CVS.

Why go all the way and establish flow control and blocks, just to get rid of
static html?  Because a lot of the hardcoded html performs block type
returns *and* because if I'm going to delve into the code, I may as well do
it right the first time.

Thoughts?  Post them to the list ...

Regards

Mark Limburg

Operations Support Team Leader
Information Services
BAE SYSTEMS Australia