Call for thoughts on a new Settings/Options/Metadata API

Discussion:

Eric Andrew Lewis

2013-11-13 00:37:21 UTC

Hey folks,

I've been ruminating on a new Settings/Options/Metadata API and discussing
with other developers; I'd like to open up the floor for response, and
perhaps an on-going weekly discussion/architecture-as-a-plugin project. The
Settings API is a bit of a white
whale<http://core.trac.wordpress.org/ticket/18285>,
so I know this will take a while to produce something core-ready, but hey,
I'm not going anywhere.

Generally, the APIs for "settings/metadata/options/etc" in WordPress have
been divided as far as codebase goes, although largely they serve the same
purpose: outputting form elements, and validating/sanitizing/saving the
data. This includes:

1. "Settings" proper, settings tied to the WordPress install, operable
via the Settings API <http://codex.wordpress.org/Settings_API>.
2. Post meta boxes, which really boils down to
add_meta_box()<http://codex.wordpress.org/Function_Reference/add_meta_box>,
and the many<https://github.com/jaredatch/Custom-Metaboxes-and-Fields-for-WordPress>
frameworks <https://github.com/scribu/wp-scb-framework>
built<https://github.com/farinspace/wpalchemy>
on <http://wordpress.org/plugins/advanced-custom-fields/>
it<http://wordpress.org/plugins/pods/>
.
3. Widget settings via the Widgets
API<http://codex.wordpress.org/Widgets_API>
.
4. Taxonomy meta data, which isn't in core but there's plugins for this
as well <http://wordpress.org/plugins/taxonomy-metadata/>.
5. Theme Customization
API<https://codex.wordpress.org/Theme_Customization_API>
.

I don't think it would be productive to rewrite APIs for all of these
components. However, considering a structure for something to serve as a
base for all of these components at the same time would be prudent in order
to avoid back-compat pitfalls.

An issue in previous iterations of these APIs has been the object structure
of a setting/metadata/option being intermingled with the the UI components
in some cases. I don't want to jump the gun on implementation, but here is
a gist of meanderings imagining a new
API<https://gist.github.com/ericandrewlewis/7441441>
.

I would love to hear constructive feedback: what the issues you face as a
developer in the current environment, what you might want from a new API,
etc.

Eric Andrew Lewis
ericandrewlewis.com
610.715.8560

Chip Bennett

2013-11-13 00:43:38 UTC

Permalink

From the perspective of a Theme developer (and reviewer), I think the

biggest piece missing from that... tapestry(?) are standardized output for
form fields, and correlating standardized sanitization methods. The Theme
Customizer API gets around that for standardized form fields, but not for
standardized sanitization.

On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 7:37 PM, Eric Andrew Lewis <

and the many<
https://github.com/jaredatch/Custom-Metaboxes-and-Fields-for-WordPress>
frameworks <https://github.com/scribu/wp-scb-framework>
built<https://github.com/farinspace/wpalchemy>
on <http://wordpress.org/plugins/advanced-custom-fields/>
it<http://wordpress.org/plugins/pods/>
.
3. Widget settings via the Widgets
API<http://codex.wordpress.org/Widgets_API>
.
4. Taxonomy meta data, which isn't in core but there's plugins for this
as well <http://wordpress.org/plugins/taxonomy-metadata/>.
5. Theme Customization
API<https://codex.wordpress.org/Theme_Customization_API>
.
I don't think it would be productive to rewrite APIs for all of these
components. However, considering a structure for something to serve as a
base for all of these components at the same time would be prudent in order
to avoid back-compat pitfalls.
An issue in previous iterations of these APIs has been the object structure
of a setting/metadata/option being intermingled with the the UI components
in some cases. I don't want to jump the gun on implementation, but here is
a gist of meanderings imagining a new
API<https://gist.github.com/ericandrewlewis/7441441>
.
I would love to hear constructive feedback: what the issues you face as a
developer in the current environment, what you might want from a new API,
etc.
Eric Andrew Lewis
ericandrewlewis.com
610.715.8560
_______________________________________________
wp-hackers mailing list
http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-hackers

Thomas Belknap

2013-11-13 00:52:07 UTC

Permalink

Having recently dived into the Settings API I have to say I find the whole
notion of "Settings Sections" pretty convoluted for no real reason I
understand. Settings seem like enough work that they API didn't really
solve any problems it didn't replace.

Not knowing that the Settings API was already built, I started playing
around with something that I called "Easy Inputs," which was basically my
attempt to recreate CakePHP's Form Helper. I'll get lots of howls on this
list for even mentioning the name, I'm sure. But the brave should probably
have a look at the (IMO) well-developed and abstracted form field builders
it has. With a little extra effort, it would be easy to adapt this concept
to WordPress, including automatically adding nonce fields, and have that
vehicle for form creation be use-agnostic: we don't much care if you use it
for a contact page, a template options page or settings for a plugin. Let
the developer define in his call what its used for.

Anyway, my two cents.

From the perspective of a Theme developer (and reviewer), I think the
biggest piece missing from that... tapestry(?) are standardized output for
form fields, and correlating standardized sanitization methods. The Theme
Customizer API gets around that for standardized form fields, but not for
standardized sanitization.
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 7:37 PM, Eric Andrew Lewis <

Post by Eric Andrew Lewis
Hey folks,
I've been ruminating on a new Settings/Options/Metadata API and

discussing

Post by Eric Andrew Lewis
with other developers; I'd like to open up the floor for response, and
perhaps an on-going weekly discussion/architecture-as-a-plugin project.

The

Post by Eric Andrew Lewis
Settings API is a bit of a white
whale<http://core.trac.wordpress.org/ticket/18285>,
so I know this will take a while to produce something core-ready, but

hey,

Post by Eric Andrew Lewis
I'm not going anywhere.
Generally, the APIs for "settings/metadata/options/etc" in WordPress have
been divided as far as codebase goes, although largely they serve the

same

Post by Eric Andrew Lewis
purpose: outputting form elements, and validating/sanitizing/saving the
1. "Settings" proper, settings tied to the WordPress install, operable
via the Settings API <http://codex.wordpress.org/Settings_API>.
2. Post meta boxes, which really boils down to
add_meta_box()<

http://codex.wordpress.org/Function_Reference/add_meta_box

Post by Eric Andrew Lewis

this

Post by Eric Andrew Lewis
as well <http://wordpress.org/plugins/taxonomy-metadata/>.
5. Theme Customization
API<https://codex.wordpress.org/Theme_Customization_API>
.
I don't think it would be productive to rewrite APIs for all of these
components. However, considering a structure for something to serve as a
base for all of these components at the same time would be prudent in

order

Post by Eric Andrew Lewis
to avoid back-compat pitfalls.
An issue in previous iterations of these APIs has been the object

structure

Post by Eric Andrew Lewis
of a setting/metadata/option being intermingled with the the UI

components

Post by Eric Andrew Lewis
in some cases. I don't want to jump the gun on implementation, but here

Post by Eric Andrew Lewis
a gist of meanderings imagining a new
API<https://gist.github.com/ericandrewlewis/7441441>
.
I would love to hear constructive feedback: what the issues you face as a
developer in the current environment, what you might want from a new API,
etc.
Eric Andrew Lewis
ericandrewlewis.com
610.715.8560
_______________________________________________
wp-hackers mailing list
http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-hackers

_______________________________________________
wp-hackers mailing list
http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-hackers

--
Tom Belknap
Owner/Editor, DragonFlyEye.Net
Join me:

- *Inbox:* http://dragonflyeye.net/subscribe
- *Web*: http://dragonflyeye.net/
- *Facebook*: https://www.facebook.com/DragonFlyEye.Net
- *Twitter*: https://twitter.com/dragonflyeye
- *Google*: https://plus.google.com/u/1/103251482414903117843/posts

John Blackbourn

2013-11-13 01:21:06 UTC

Permalink

As Eric mentioned:

"An issue in previous iterations of these APIs has been the object
structure of a setting/metadata/option being intermingled with the the UI
components in some cases."

To me, this is fundamental. WordPress is no longer just an admin UI that
you only visit in a web browser. WordPress can be accessed via the XML-RPC
API, via the upcoming JSON API, via the command line with WP-CLI or
WordShell, or via any number of third party services using various custom
APIs.

Giving everything in WordPress that is settings-like (post meta, user meta,
settings, theme options, etc) better structure would enable, quite
literally, a next generation of apps to be built on WordPress. If we were
building WordPress from scratch today, this is how all this various
metadata would be structured.

A standard set of form helpers, therefore, becomes just one part of what we
want. Form helpers would be used in the admin area for settings pages, in
post meta boxes, in theme options and the customiser, etc. However, the
underlying structure of each setting or piece of metadata ("this metadata
is an integer", "this option is a colour picker") would mean that other
APIs that interface with WordPress know what data to expect, what data to
return, and how to present each field. The mobile apps would, for example,
know which native input controls to use for each field.

This might sound a bit idealistic (maybe it is) but I think it'd be a
missed opportunity if we ended up with another settings API that didn't
give us this sort of structure.

John

Post by Thomas Belknap
Having recently dived into the Settings API I have to say I find the whole
notion of "Settings Sections" pretty convoluted for no real reason I
understand. Settings seem like enough work that they API didn't really
solve any problems it didn't replace.
Not knowing that the Settings API was already built, I started playing
around with something that I called "Easy Inputs," which was basically my
attempt to recreate CakePHP's Form Helper. I'll get lots of howls on this
list for even mentioning the name, I'm sure. But the brave should probably
have a look at the (IMO) well-developed and abstracted form field builders
it has. With a little extra effort, it would be easy to adapt this concept
to WordPress, including automatically adding nonce fields, and have that
vehicle for form creation be use-agnostic: we don't much care if you use it
for a contact page, a template options page or settings for a plugin. Let
the developer define in his call what its used for.
Anyway, my two cents.

From the perspective of a Theme developer (and reviewer), I think the
biggest piece missing from that... tapestry(?) are standardized output

for

form fields, and correlating standardized sanitization methods. The Theme
Customizer API gets around that for standardized form fields, but not for
standardized sanitization.
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 7:37 PM, Eric Andrew Lewis <

Post by Eric Andrew Lewis
Hey folks,
I've been ruminating on a new Settings/Options/Metadata API and

discussing

Post by Eric Andrew Lewis
with other developers; I'd like to open up the floor for response, and
perhaps an on-going weekly discussion/architecture-as-a-plugin project.

The

Post by Eric Andrew Lewis
Settings API is a bit of a white
whale<http://core.trac.wordpress.org/ticket/18285>,
so I know this will take a while to produce something core-ready, but

hey,

Post by Eric Andrew Lewis
I'm not going anywhere.
Generally, the APIs for "settings/metadata/options/etc" in WordPress

have

Post by Eric Andrew Lewis
been divided as far as codebase goes, although largely they serve the

same

Post by Eric Andrew Lewis
purpose: outputting form elements, and validating/sanitizing/saving the
1. "Settings" proper, settings tied to the WordPress install,

operable

Post by Eric Andrew Lewis
via the Settings API <http://codex.wordpress.org/Settings_API>.
2. Post meta boxes, which really boils down to
add_meta_box()<

http://codex.wordpress.org/Function_Reference/add_meta_box

Post by Eric Andrew Lewis

and the many<
https://github.com/jaredatch/Custom-Metaboxes-and-Fields-for-WordPress
frameworks <https://github.com/scribu/wp-scb-framework>
built<https://github.com/farinspace/wpalchemy>
on <http://wordpress.org/plugins/advanced-custom-fields/>
it<http://wordpress.org/plugins/pods/>
.
3. Widget settings via the Widgets
API<http://codex.wordpress.org/Widgets_API>
.
4. Taxonomy meta data, which isn't in core but there's plugins for

this

Post by Eric Andrew Lewis
base for all of these components at the same time would be prudent in

order

Post by Eric Andrew Lewis
to avoid back-compat pitfalls.
An issue in previous iterations of these APIs has been the object

structure

Post by Eric Andrew Lewis
of a setting/metadata/option being intermingled with the the UI

components

Post by Eric Andrew Lewis
in some cases. I don't want to jump the gun on implementation, but here

Post by Eric Andrew Lewis
a gist of meanderings imagining a new
API<https://gist.github.com/ericandrewlewis/7441441>
.
I would love to hear constructive feedback: what the issues you face

as a

Post by Eric Andrew Lewis
developer in the current environment, what you might want from a new

API,

Post by Eric Andrew Lewis
etc.
Eric Andrew Lewis
ericandrewlewis.com
610.715.8560
_______________________________________________
wp-hackers mailing list
http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-hackers

_______________________________________________
wp-hackers mailing list
http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-hackers

--
Tom Belknap
Owner/Editor, DragonFlyEye.Net
- *Inbox:* http://dragonflyeye.net/subscribe
- *Web*: http://dragonflyeye.net/
- *Facebook*: https://www.facebook.com/DragonFlyEye.Net
- *Twitter*: https://twitter.com/dragonflyeye
- *Google*: https://plus.google.com/u/1/103251482414903117843/posts
_______________________________________________
wp-hackers mailing list
http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-hackers

Tom Barrett

2013-11-13 07:01:36 UTC

Permalink

Great name, excellent point.

I find the theme options sections settings callback jiggery really
unintuitive. It looks like something very clever that is over engineered.
Makes my head spin. Please, please consider something else.

Is it just me?

// Sent by Nexus

From the perspective of a Theme developer (and reviewer), I think the
biggest piece missing from that... tapestry(?) are standardized output

for

Post by Eric Andrew Lewis
Hey folks,
I've been ruminating on a new Settings/Options/Metadata API and

discussing

Post by Eric Andrew Lewis
with other developers; I'd like to open up the floor for response, and
perhaps an on-going weekly discussion/architecture-as-a-plugin project.

The

Post by Eric Andrew Lewis
Settings API is a bit of a white
whale<http://core.trac.wordpress.org/ticket/18285>,
so I know this will take a while to produce something core-ready, but

hey,

Post by Eric Andrew Lewis
I'm not going anywhere.
Generally, the APIs for "settings/metadata/options/etc" in WordPress

have

Post by Eric Andrew Lewis
been divided as far as codebase goes, although largely they serve the

same

Post by Eric Andrew Lewis
purpose: outputting form elements, and validating/sanitizing/saving the
1. "Settings" proper, settings tied to the WordPress install,

operable

Post by Eric Andrew Lewis
via the Settings API <http://codex.wordpress.org/Settings_API>.
2. Post meta boxes, which really boils down to
add_meta_box()<

http://codex.wordpress.org/Function_Reference/add_meta_box

Post by Eric Andrew Lewis

this

Post by Eric Andrew Lewis
base for all of these components at the same time would be prudent in

order

Post by Eric Andrew Lewis
to avoid back-compat pitfalls.
An issue in previous iterations of these APIs has been the object

structure

Post by Eric Andrew Lewis
of a setting/metadata/option being intermingled with the the UI

components

Post by Eric Andrew Lewis
in some cases. I don't want to jump the gun on implementation, but here

Post by Eric Andrew Lewis
a gist of meanderings imagining a new
API<https://gist.github.com/ericandrewlewis/7441441>
.
I would love to hear constructive feedback: what the issues you face

as a

Post by Eric Andrew Lewis
developer in the current environment, what you might want from a new

API,

_______________________________________________
wp-hackers mailing list
http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-hackers

Ryan McCue

2013-11-13 13:20:15 UTC

Permalink

Post by Eric Andrew Lewis
An issue in previous iterations of these APIs has been the object structure
of a setting/metadata/option being intermingled with the the UI components
in some cases. I don't want to jump the gun on implementation, but here is
a gist of meanderings imagining a new
API<https://gist.github.com/ericandrewlewis/7441441>

I think that's a good start on structure. I do think we need to avoid
being too verbose though; having used some other systems similar to
this, you can end up very abstract quickly.

Rather than having the 'for' key, and letting settings be attached to
everything, I think we could use subclassing. It's a little weird to
have something attached to both a post *and* as an option without
needing different handling. I'm thinking:

abstract class WP_Setting {}
class WP_Setting_Option extends WP_Setting {}
class WP_Setting_Post_Meta extends WP_Setting {}

But that could end up being confusing.

Post by Eric Andrew Lewis
I would love to hear constructive feedback: what the issues you face as a
developer in the current environment, what you might want from a new API,
etc.

I think something we should look into handling is making nested options
a first-class feature. That is, storing an array/etc into a single
option, rather than spreading it out. It's been recommended for a long
time, but you have to write all of the handling yourself.

On the other hand, if you could do something like...

$setting = new WP_Setting( array(
'key' => 'master_option',
'type' => 'array',
'children' => array(
'option1' => new WP_Setting( ... ),
'option2 => new WP_Setting( ... ),
),
) );

...that'd be pretty cool. This could also be implemented via the
settings group API you proposed.

--
Ryan McCue
<http://ryanmccue.info/>

Thomas Belknap

2013-11-13 13:38:47 UTC

Permalink

What if the form-building API remained more or less agnostic, and a
hook-type vehicle was used to listen for appropriate data?

(in the form):
echo $Form->input('my_setting', array('type' => 'text', 'class' =>
'my_plugin_setting', 'maxlength' => 200));

(on save):
function save_my_setting() {
if( !empty($_POST['settings_api']['my_setting']) ) :
$Form->check_nonce($_POST['settings_api']['my_setting_nonce']);
add_option('my_setting', $_POST['settings_api']['my_setting']);
endif;
}

The idea here is that we only require the developer to provide the language
that correctly inserts a form element into the form. The API handles
creating a nonce and correctly setting the name field to include the array
that sets all settings_api fields apart from any other data (just for
convenience sake).

If you want to create a "section," feel free to do so in HTML. If you want
to nest form elements together or save them into subelements of the array
for your own purposes, have at it. The API only cares that a limited but
effective set of layout and security needs be met in order to properly save
your data.

Post by Eric Andrew Lewis

Post by Eric Andrew Lewis
An issue in previous iterations of these APIs has been the object

structure

Post by Eric Andrew Lewis
of a setting/metadata/option being intermingled with the the UI

components

Post by Eric Andrew Lewis
in some cases. I don't want to jump the gun on implementation, but here

Post by Eric Andrew Lewis
a gist of meanderings imagining a new
API<https://gist.github.com/ericandrewlewis/7441441>

I think that's a good start on structure. I do think we need to avoid
being too verbose though; having used some other systems similar to
this, you can end up very abstract quickly.
Rather than having the 'for' key, and letting settings be attached to
everything, I think we could use subclassing. It's a little weird to
have something attached to both a post *and* as an option without
abstract class WP_Setting {}
class WP_Setting_Option extends WP_Setting {}
class WP_Setting_Post_Meta extends WP_Setting {}
But that could end up being confusing.

Post by Eric Andrew Lewis
I would love to hear constructive feedback: what the issues you face as a
developer in the current environment, what you might want from a new API,
etc.

I think something we should look into handling is making nested options
a first-class feature. That is, storing an array/etc into a single
option, rather than spreading it out. It's been recommended for a long
time, but you have to write all of the handling yourself.
On the other hand, if you could do something like...
$setting = new WP_Setting( array(
'key' => 'master_option',
'type' => 'array',
'children' => array(
'option1' => new WP_Setting( ... ),
'option2 => new WP_Setting( ... ),
),
) );
...that'd be pretty cool. This could also be implemented via the
settings group API you proposed.
--
Ryan McCue
<http://ryanmccue.info/>
_______________________________________________
wp-hackers mailing list
http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-hackers

Eric Andrew Lewis

2013-11-13 15:47:39 UTC

Permalink

Thanks for the response everyone, and of course keep it coming if you'd
like to add your two cents. I think these points will be a good launchpad
for roadmapping in a dev chat.

Something I'd also like to add to the must-have list is repeating form
fields. For example, a custom post type for Company might include a
repeating field for phone number, to which you could add multiple different
contact numbers to. This is already built-in to some of the post meta
libraries, and brings JS MV* framework support into the discussion.

Eric Andrew Lewis
ericandrewlewis.com
610.715.8560

On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 8:38 AM, Thomas Belknap

Post by Thomas Belknap
What if the form-building API remained more or less agnostic, and a
hook-type vehicle was used to listen for appropriate data?
echo $Form->input('my_setting', array('type' => 'text', 'class' =>
'my_plugin_setting', 'maxlength' => 200));
function save_my_setting() {
$Form->check_nonce($_POST['settings_api']['my_setting_nonce']);
add_option('my_setting', $_POST['settings_api']['my_setting']);
endif;
}
The idea here is that we only require the developer to provide the language
that correctly inserts a form element into the form. The API handles
creating a nonce and correctly setting the name field to include the array
that sets all settings_api fields apart from any other data (just for
convenience sake).
If you want to create a "section," feel free to do so in HTML. If you want
to nest form elements together or save them into subelements of the array
for your own purposes, have at it. The API only cares that a limited but
effective set of layout and security needs be met in order to properly save
your data.

Post by Eric Andrew Lewis

Post by Eric Andrew Lewis
An issue in previous iterations of these APIs has been the object

structure

Post by Eric Andrew Lewis
of a setting/metadata/option being intermingled with the the UI

components

Post by Eric Andrew Lewis
in some cases. I don't want to jump the gun on implementation, but here

Post by Eric Andrew Lewis
a gist of meanderings imagining a new
API<https://gist.github.com/ericandrewlewis/7441441>

I think that's a good start on structure. I do think we need to avoid
being too verbose though; having used some other systems similar to
this, you can end up very abstract quickly.
Rather than having the 'for' key, and letting settings be attached to
everything, I think we could use subclassing. It's a little weird to
have something attached to both a post *and* as an option without
abstract class WP_Setting {}
class WP_Setting_Option extends WP_Setting {}
class WP_Setting_Post_Meta extends WP_Setting {}
But that could end up being confusing.

Post by Eric Andrew Lewis
I would love to hear constructive feedback: what the issues you face

as a

Post by Eric Andrew Lewis

Post by Eric Andrew Lewis
developer in the current environment, what you might want from a new

API,

Post by Eric Andrew Lewis

Post by Eric Andrew Lewis
etc.

I think something we should look into handling is making nested options
a first-class feature. That is, storing an array/etc into a single
option, rather than spreading it out. It's been recommended for a long
time, but you have to write all of the handling yourself.
On the other hand, if you could do something like...
$setting = new WP_Setting( array(
'key' => 'master_option',
'type' => 'array',
'children' => array(
'option1' => new WP_Setting( ... ),
'option2 => new WP_Setting( ... ),
),
) );
...that'd be pretty cool. This could also be implemented via the
settings group API you proposed.
--
Ryan McCue
<http://ryanmccue.info/>
_______________________________________________
wp-hackers mailing list
http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-hackers

Funkatron

2013-11-13 16:33:49 UTC

Permalink

I'm partial to the the OOP approach that the theme customizer uses. It
creates the fields and automagically binds it to a particular option.
Especially love the image and color fields it uses. Would love something
like that for post meta and settings, with the option to create your own
fields if the ones provided in the core aren't adequate.

Nashwan Doaqan

2013-11-14 11:11:04 UTC

Permalink

1+, Forms Builder API will make our life easier, This plugin may help you:
https://github.com/nash-ye/Momtaz-Nmwdhj

Post by Funkatron
I'm partial to the the OOP approach that the theme customizer uses. It
creates the fields and automagically binds it to a particular option.
Especially love the image and color fields it uses. Would love something
like that for post meta and settings, with the option to create your own
fields if the ones provided in the core aren't adequate.
_______________________________________________
wp-hackers mailing list
http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-hackers

Eric Lewis

2013-11-21 17:31:08 UTC

Permalink

FYI, a development team is coming together for this feature.

We’ll be meeting in (freenode) IRC chatroom #wordpress-core-plugins Tuesday, November 26th at 2200 UTC (5 PM EST) to start.

Eric

Post by Nashwan Doaqan
https://github.com/nash-ye/Momtaz-Nmwdhj

_______________________________________________
wp-hackers mailing list
http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-hackers