[buddypress-trac] [BuddyPress Trac] #6065: Add support for WordPress Page templates

[buddypress-trac]

#6065: Add support for WordPress Page templates
-------------------------------------------------+-------------------------
 Reporter:  DJPaul                               |       Owner:  djpaul
     Type:  enhancement                          |      Status:  reopened
 Priority:  highest                              |   Milestone:  2.2
Component:  Theme / Template Parts               |     Version:
 Severity:  normal                               |  Resolution:
 Keywords:  has-patch 2nd-opinion reporter-      |
  feedback                                       |
-------------------------------------------------+-------------------------
Changes (by johnjamesjacoby):

 * keywords:  has-patch => has-patch 2nd-opinion reporter-feedback
 * priority:  normal => highest


Comment:

 From dev-chat today, the original intent of this feature was to allow for
 a "component wrapper template" style approach, where single objects funnel
 down into the page-template set by their directory page.

 I'm afraid of what this means for things like the template hierarchy,
 where our `directory_template_hierarchy()` methods behave differently from
 our `single_template_hierarchy()` methods, and also work differently than
 any WordPress core template hierarchy.

 This isn't to say it's a bad idea, it's just new, foreign, and not openly
 discussed in this ticket. It also commits us to using page-templates,
 which somewhat locks us in to using pages and makes moving to rewrite
 rules much more difficult.

 I think we have a few options:

 * Leave it as a filter like it is now, and remove the `bp_is_directory()`
 checks. If we go this route, I'd like to not announce it as a feature
 publicly (knowing we will likely either deprecate it later.) This seems
 kind of wasteful and half-baked to me.
 * Leave the filter unhooked so it's not actually active in core for people
 to get used to, then we can silently drop support for something we never
 actively supported in the first place. This seems like we are punishing
 the people that care enough to look for the hidden gems.
 * Revert, and put this into an experimental plugin instead. There's been a
 fair amount of work put into this so far, so putting it in a plugin allows
 us to gauge popularity and doesn't commit us to supporting anything until
 we consider all angles. This seems like the approach that's least likely
 to cause problems later, but full disclosure -- I don't see much value in
 this as a feature myself anyways, so I'm less likely to root for it.

 Would like to get opinions from the leads before taking any further
 action.

--
Ticket URL: <https://buddypress.trac.wordpress.org/ticket/6065#comment:22>
BuddyPress Trac <http://buddypress.org/>
BuddyPress Trac