Currently, the Revert to Original option in the templates reverts the code to MyBB default theme, which in my opinion could be confusing for some people. I myself constantly need to revert a template to the theme's original code, but I have to install another copy of the theme and copy the code from there.
To fix this, I would like to see a new option called Revert to Default. And that will revert the template to MyBB's default theme, whereas the existing Revert to Original option should revert the template to the theme's original state.
Do we know how themes and templates will be stored in 2.0, and if this will even be a relevant problem?
(2011-08-11, 11:49 AM)Steven Wrote: [ -> ]Do we know how themes and templates will be stored in 2.0, and if this will even be a relevant problem?
Considering they're using Twig, I assume they'll be stored on the filesystem - unless they're writing their own loader (Twig doesn't have a loader for loading from a database as default).
(2011-08-11, 11:55 AM)euantor Wrote: [ -> ]Considering they're using Twig, I assume they'll be stored on the filesystem - unless they're writing their own loader (Twig doesn't have a loader for loading from a database as default).
I would personally prefer a filesystem based storage system so I could edit from Coda/whatever over FTP instead of an inferior web-based editor.
I don't think there would be a significant advantage using a database with an existing template system.
(2011-08-11, 11:59 AM)Steven Wrote: [ -> ] (2011-08-11, 11:55 AM)euantor Wrote: [ -> ]Considering they're using Twig, I assume they'll be stored on the filesystem - unless they're writing their own loader (Twig doesn't have a loader for loading from a database as default).
I would personally prefer a filesystem based storage system so I could edit from Coda/whatever over FTP instead of an inferior web-based editor.
I don't think there would be a significant advantage using a database with an existing template system.
I too prefer a filesystem based way of doing things. I'm using Twig for a project at the moment and have had no issues using the standard method. In fact, my whole experience with it so far has been great.
(2011-08-11, 12:06 PM)euantor Wrote: [ -> ]I too prefer a filesystem based way of doing things. I'm using Twig for a project at the moment and have had no issues using the standard method. In fact, my whole experience with it so far has been great.
I've been using
Savant3 for my projects (administrative control panel framework; I don't need many fancy features). Although a database-driven storage method could work, it can get messy really fast. I'm not sure of database vs. filesystem speed differences with template data sizes, but I would imagine it would simplify and speed things up a bit. Plus, you can always have a web-based editor for those that don't want to edit over FTP/SSH.
(2011-08-11, 12:10 PM)Steven Wrote: [ -> ] (2011-08-11, 12:06 PM)euantor Wrote: [ -> ]I too prefer a filesystem based way of doing things. I'm using Twig for a project at the moment and have had no issues using the standard method. In fact, my whole experience with it so far has been great.
I've been using Savant3 for my projects (administrative control panel framework; I don't need many fancy features). Although a database-driven storage method could work, it can get messy really fast. I'm not sure of database vs. filesystem speed differences with template data sizes, but I would imagine it would simplify and speed things up a bit. Plus, you can always have a web-based editor for those that don't want to edit over FTP/SSH.
The speed all depends on several things, mostly server based. You can have a web based editor too, but I'd guess that most people would prefer to use their own desktop editor. A web based editor can speed things up though for small edits and changes.
I've never heard of Savant though, I'll have to look into it.