Comments on: Carrington on Google Code

By: Alex

Alex — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 03:03:25 +0000

Yes, maintaining the expected WP files *is* important for compatibility.

You’re welcome to do what you like, it’s Open Source.

By: john

john — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 02:44:56 +0000

My suggestion doesn’t require neglecting backwards compatibility. Maybe I’ll write the plugin myself.

By: Alex

Alex — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 04:23:24 +0000

Backwards compatibility is a feature.

By: john

john — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 07:50:49 +0000

You completely missed my point. I was saying keep the file templates separated into folders but use a plugin to override WP’s default theme structure so that the root folder of the theme doesn’t need all the WP theme files (header.php, index.php, etc). These files just tell WP to use the framework. If they could be eliminated it would clean up the theme folder a bit. Then I wouldn’t whine as much. Sheesh!

To let you know, the reason I complained about this in the first place is that I’m modifying a theme that was developed on Carrington. So I do have experience and I’m not just critiquing for the sake of critiquing.

By: Bill

Bill — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 03:03:58 +0000

Have you even looked at the documentation or seen how the theme works? The file templates and separation of them into folders is how the framework functions. Please see my note above re: morons. Sheesh!

By: Quasi.dot

Quasi.dot — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 22:40:40 +0000

[...] Alex King: Carrington on Google Code [...]

By: john

john — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 20:34:32 +0000

Have you thought about separating the “framework” portions of the theme into a plugin? Then you could (most likely) override WordPress’s default theme structure and avoid having to have all the default files (header.php, index.php, etc.) This would allow you to more simply use your new subfolder structure. My biggest issue with it is that there are so many files in the root folder of the theme, most of them just telling WordPress to use the framework. I just think there could be a better, cleaner implementation.

By: Alex

Alex — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 06:42:24 +0000

All frameworks (Carrington, Rails, CakePHP, etc.) have benefits and drawbacks, and all are “unnecessary” as their functions can be accomplished without the framework. The frameworks provide automation and other benefits. Then it’s a matter of cost/benefit analysis – just like anything.

I consider the additional abstraction of content into separate theme files a necessary thing as we do a lot of AJAX in our WP themes and need more atomic elements to work with than the default WP organization provides. I assume you’ve read that in the README already though.

By: john

john — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 23:35:21 +0000

Ha, alright. I’ve definitely pushed the limits of WordPress. Heck, one of my plugins is a new feature in 2.7. I’m just not sold, and I guess I don’t have to be. Keep up the good work.

By: Sean

Sean — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 21:24:43 +0000

I think you’re missing the point of the framework idea.

If the extent of your “advanced enough” means customizing tags or the loop, then you’re not actually needing to build sites more robust than what WP out of the box provides. period.
you will get it eventually, keep trying.

After using K2 as my base framework for almost 2 years, I immediately saw the power and possibilities with Carrington. Its an abstraction layer beyond simply changing the look of your blog, but also functionality and future-forward thinking (regarding maintenance and ease of expansion).

you have to step back a pace or 3 in your WP customizing viewpoint.

By: john

john — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 17:43:06 +0000

I think I had some valid points and I’m curious for a response. Apparently I’m missing something since so many people find it useful. I just honestly want to know why it’s so great.

By: Bill

Bill — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 06:45:53 +0000

I don’t understand why this theme is attracting so many morons. Look, it’s a framework. It’s different. It’s also better. If you don’t want to use it, go away. Sheesh!

By: john

john — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 02:25:43 +0000

I’ve built plenty of sites that are advanced enough to “need it”. (Developed numerous plugins as well.) The thing is, most likely if you are going to specify a look for a certain tag or category archive, only a few minor things will be modified. It would be silly to copy the main tag template and paste it into a new tag template with the few modifications. That’s what the handy WP conditional statements are for. And say you want to abstract the post loop for use in other parts of the theme, it’s simple, separate the loop into its own file and use an include. When I first looked at Carrington I was overwhelmed by how many different files and folders there were. I’m all about simplicity. I try to have as few files in my themes as possible. This way you don’t spend 20 minutes editing a file and wondering why nothing is changing (because there are 3 other files overriding that one). I guess to each his own though.

By: Alex

Alex — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 18:45:11 +0000

The native WP one seems elegant enough to me.

If you don’t instantly see obvious benefits from Carrington, you probably aren’t building sites that are advanced enough to need it. If you don’t need it, don’t use it.

By: john

john — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 14:36:07 +0000

I don’t see why an “elegant theme framework” is needed. The native WP one seems elegant enough to me. From what I’ve seen of Carrington it seems bloated.