Comments on: about:config for WordPress

By: Bill Brown

Bill Brown — Mon, 13 Mar 2006 16:56:34 +0000

Textpattern has something like this called “Advanced Preferences” (though even their “Site Preferences” looks more complicated than most preferences, options, or settings pages ought to look). I’d link to an example, but documentation is pretty sparse.

By: Viper007Bond

Viper007Bond — Sat, 26 Nov 2005 11:07:36 +0000

I’d LOVE to have something like this.

By: David House

David House — Sat, 26 Nov 2005 10:05:18 +0000

shorty114: that has already beeen suggested and indeed has existed for several versions now. Just browse directly to wp-admin/options.php. However, that doesn’t cover the things Alex talked about in the post, as things like post slug uniqueness don’t go through the options table at all.

By: shorty114

shorty114 — Fri, 25 Nov 2005 23:02:46 +0000

It would probably be really easy just to make a plugin that makes a page that dumps stuff from the wp_options database table into an interface like Mozilla’s about:config. No “what this does” stuff, just the variable name and change the value.

It’d be useful for stuff that isn’t supposed to be modified by the average user, but can be useful for more experienced users.

By: David House

David House — Fri, 25 Nov 2005 19:21:07 +0000

Alex: I’m not sure you have. I can see that you’ve explained it as an alternative to writing a plugin, but if you want something specific and unique to just you, then I don’t see any reason why hacking the source shouldn’t be ruled out.

If I’ve misunderstood something, then sorry in advance, and could you point me toward the part of the post where you explained that? Thanks

By: Alex

Alex — Fri, 25 Nov 2005 13:44:00 +0000

David House, I believe I explain why this is an alternative to hacking the source several times… please take the time to read the post more carefully.

By: David House

David House — Fri, 25 Nov 2005 08:22:42 +0000

I suppose, in theory, we already allow this. WordPress isn’t a compiled program meaning that if you want something changed, you hack the source. I’m not condoning putting a nice interface on top of this, just something to think about.

By: Photo Matt

Photo Matt — Fri, 25 Nov 2005 07:50:14 +0000

Should We Have Hidden Options?

Alex King has recently suggested that we have an about:config for WordPress. When I first thought this I thought “great!” because we’ve had this for several versions now: if you browse to options.php directly you can edit any option i…

By: Roy Schestowitz

Roy Schestowitz — Fri, 25 Nov 2005 04:09:26 +0000

All in favour say “aye”. *raises hand*

Hidden options are an excellent idea in principle. Thunderbird enables you to enter a variety of statements into JavaScript files, thereby customising the mail client quite endlessly (introduction phrase, symbols, etc.). Whether these hidden option are implication of an advanced option that is not yet implemented, I can’t tell. Either way, it is a selling point to anyone who feels passionate about hacking or even requires certain customisations.

For example, I know I would be deterred by a client that does not handle exectutable/dynamic signatures and I also feel uncomfortable having no control over the X-headers. I currently use 3 mail clients in tandem (KMail, Thunderbird, Horde) because none offers all the required features. Thunderbird with its hidden options and plug-ins is yet the most powerful/flexible.

As regards hidden options in general, the only issue I can think of is increased complexity in the code. Many conditional statements and more parameters/values which are not hardcoded make code flow harder to keep abreast of. Support for multiple languages has a similar effect. Having said that, since broadly speaking, those to ever look at the code know what they are doing, I think it is balanced by the positive points, if not overwhelmed by them.

Nice suggestion.

By: David House

David House — Thu, 24 Nov 2005 22:14:49 +0000

Aha. I thought you were talking about page slugs, which don’t have to be unique. That check only applies to posts.

Never mind then.

By: Alex

Alex — Thu, 24 Nov 2005 21:47:49 +0000

David House – according to trac.wordpress.org in trunk, you are incorrect. See the $post_name_check portion of wp_insert_post().

Regardless, this is just one example.

By: David House

David House — Thu, 24 Nov 2005 21:03:28 +0000

Alex: I’ve checked with my svn-latest test blog, and WP no longer forces page slug uniqueness. Neither does it with categories. There’s actually no code to check against the entire URL either, but that’s an ommission.

By: Craig Hartel

Craig Hartel — Thu, 24 Nov 2005 21:02:33 +0000

I know that an about:config-like option panel would be welcomed by many. For the ubergeeks, it would be total Nirvana and for the less technically inclined, it could be something that is out of sight and out of mind.

It’s the best of both worlds, really. I would certainly support something like this being done!

By: Alex

Alex — Thu, 24 Nov 2005 19:10:30 +0000

Chris, permalink structures can change. This was discussed at length on the wp-hackers list, I recommend check out the archives on this issue.

marcoss, functions can be overridden – procedual code just happens and the core files need to be modified. I’m suggesting that some of this procedural code be made configurable.

By: marcoss

marcoss — Thu, 24 Nov 2005 18:51:50 +0000

I believe that wordpress have been developed to be easy to use no matter what, just one, two, ready, righ?

So, if you want to have some core changes i guess you should either use a master plugin to handle those “extra” options or just get into the core files and do your magic.

I’m using the first option, i have a plugin with all my custom functions and hacks together that i keep everytime i upgrade.