Core Extensions

Agreed on the simple and powerful --> that’s exactly where we are heading ;-)

I’m not sure I understand what you mean by the difference between loadExtension and getExtension, all I was suggesting is we write ContentManager.class.php and reference that as ContentManagerClass in config.inc.php. Then in index.php we dynamically load the class from the config. This would allow someone to copy the class and reimplement it, extend it to add additional methods, or just about anything they wanted, without ever overwriting their core file. But I do see how loadExtension is a private method and shold not be exposed as an API method, but rather can be used by ContentManager extension class writers to include additional extensions in their implementation/extension of the ContentManager.

Also, the methods should be part of the class being loaded as an extension. That way I can say $user= &$cms->user and then go around doing user->getUserName() or user->save() or user->get(’userdefined-attribute-name’). Or just $cms->user->save().

Hi,

I don’t think I like the idea of having users create a class file to extend the core. This in itself could pose a problem for users if in the future we decided to add a method that their customized class is using:

example:

1) User A extends ContentManager to add a getFuctionA()
2) We then later and a getFunctionA() to the ContentManager class.
3) User B ships a Widget that relies on getFunctionA from ContentManager
4) User A downloads and installs the widget but it fails to work due to the fact that they have over ContentManager getFunctionA

IMO I think the idea of extending the core using $cms->extension is much better and allows the user to load multiple extensions and any given time.

The getExtension() function is used to return a reference to the object:

Cool, I understand what you mean now and agree, though I was referring to custom implementations of the class by overriding the behavior of existing methods.

I would like to also propose that we make it a rule when writing extensions all class names must end with the _EXT characters

example:



This way (I think) our class names will be more unique and will be less likely to clash with other application class.

Out of curiosity, why all caps?

Yeah, I personally would like to see just the word Extension on the end. Its more intuitive and more descriptive than the cryptic ’_EXT’.

Quote from: OpenGeek at Nov 27, 2005, 01:28 PM

Yeah, I personally would like to see just the word Extension on the end.  Its more intuitive and more descriptive than the cryptic ’_EXT’.

Cool! Will do