[development] Module Builder Module 1.0
bmansion at mamasam.com
Wed Feb 22 08:30:18 UTC 2006
Larry Garfield wrote:
>On Tuesday 21 February 2006 07:26, Angie Byron wrote:
>> At DrupalCon, a few of us had talked about how handy it would be to have a
>> module that automatically generated "scaffolding" for modules, both to help
>> new developers as well as to speed up the process of creating custom
>> modules for Drupal veterans.
>> As a result of a major bout of insomnia, I am pleased to announce that
>> Module Builder Module 1.0 has been committed to CVS, and even pretty much
>> works! ;) You can check it out at:
>OK, I've not actually looked at it yet, so I can't comment on how
>good/late-night the code is, but my knee-jerk reaction is that I don't like
>code generation in the first place. If the code is sufficiently boilerplate
>that it can be auto-generated, then it's sufficiently boilerplate that it
>should be written as a single routine and called with paramters. That's the
>logic behind functions and variables. :-)
>As a for-instance:
>hook_load(), hook_insert(), and hook_update() are horribly redundant. All
>three do the same thing in almost any node. They select/insert/delete fields
>from a table, using almost the same code. Sometimes there will be an extra
>table to manipulate, but there's still almost always a basic node++ table.
>And the fields have to be specified in all of them. Ick!
>The solution, however, isn't to have something that auto-generates those
>functions. It's to let the module define the table and fields once and then
>let node.module handle the basic S-I-D. Save those hooks for stuff that's
>actually interesting, and reduce the amount of code, too.
>I'm thinking something like:
> return array('nodenametable' => array('field1', 'field2', 'field3'));
>That would also allow node_load() to return an "empty node" of the correct
>type, which would help with E_ALL compliance.
>(Yes, this is something I've been thinking about for some time, but have been
>holding back on actually trying to implement because I didn't want to
>introduce a change of that size when we've been "almost ready to get 4.7 out
>the door" since, uh, November. Hi, Ber! <g> I actually did something very
>similar to this at work, so I know it can be done.)
>So yeah, code generation in general gets a -1 for me in favor of more powerful
>and generalized polymorphic code.
This is the most idiotic post I have read on this list so far. It starts with
"I've not actually looked at it yet"... Well, if you haven't looked at it, why
do you comment on it ? Do we care if you like code generation or not ? Do we
care if you like "powerful and generalized polymorphic code" ? That's not the
topic I think. This module is about building a module skeleton to make
developers job easier.
How do you think PHP extensions are written ? People use ext_skel or pecl
CodeGen and it saves them a lot of time and makes it more fun to hack something
fast. That's one thing that largely contributed to PHP success.
I am personally very thankful to the people who wrote Module_builder and will
start to use it straight away even if it's not "powerful and generalized
polymorphic code" :p
http://www.mamasam.com - creative internet solutions
http://golgote.freeflux.net - blog
More information about the development