Download & Extend
Dynamic display block » Issues

DDBlock exportables / Features support

Posted by mrfelton on May 28, 2011 at 10:27pm
Project:Dynamic display block
Version:7.x-1.x-dev
Component:Code
Category:feature request
Priority:normal
Assigned:Unassigned
Status:active

Issue Summary

DDBlock configurations should be exportable via the Features module. I think that to do this, you would need to move your configuration options from system variables, into ddblocks own database table, use machine names for configurations rather than numerical identifiers, and then either integrate that table with CTools export and export_ui, or use the features api to define the import export methods.

This would mean that complete configurations could be exported into code and installed on other sites.

I saw your nodes in #469868: DDblock out of the box, but I think that is the wrong way to go about it. CTools/Features has become the standard for import export functionality. Once you got the integration working, you would then be able to provide your out of the box configurations as Features.

Login or register to post comments

Comments

#1

Posted by ppblaauw on May 28, 2011 at 10:55pm

Some background information:

I implemented the: "ddblock out of the box" with the example module included with views_slideshow_ddblock version 2.x.

  • It creates a content type.
  • It creates a view with 6 example block displays.
  • It doesn't need preprocess functions anymore, but uses mapping of fields in the slideshow configuration page.
  • It creates example nodes.

At that time in 2009 features and ctools where not used that much and I don't know if they already delivered the functionality. Probably it was not the wrong way, it was a possible way at that time to implement more easy installation of the module.

Your feature request:

Yes, like you say: "ddblock should be exportable".
I agree

I will have a look how this can be implemented. Will keep you informed.
Thanks for your suggestions how to approach this.

Help appreciated

#2

Posted by mrfelton on May 29, 2011 at 9:46am

I hadn't noticed that the notes in the other ticket were from 2009!

So, to go the exportable route, the first thing that definitely needs to happen is to use machine names for configurations rather than numerical IDs.

If you haven't already, I'd recommend looking over the discussions that have been happening over in the nodequeue issue queue. They are well on the way to making their configs fully exportable and there is a lot of good discussion on the topic in the following tickets:

#817558: Machine names
and #373174: Export and import capability for nodequeue

#3

Posted by N20 on December 27, 2011 at 11:35am

features implementation would be very usefull for me too.