Rebrand contact form plugin

Bloke · 2017-04-24 14:22:30

Spurred on by a comment on my zem_contact_reborn repo, is it finally time to make zem_contact its own plugin?

Advantages:

The plugin is now more than a contact form. Yes, its basic tags are contact-form based, but with the callbacks, it can be used as a springboard into a CRM, or MailChimp, or delivering subscriber content, etc.
Potentially easier for new users to find such a plugin.
zem_contact_reborn doesn’t mean anything.

Disadvantages:

Pain for users to convert their current contact tags.
Plugins that use the callbacks would all need to change.
The new plugin modules I’ve introduced with ‘zcr_’ prefix that hook into the callbacks would have to be rebranded also.
We all call it ‘zcr’ for short :-)

Is it worth changing it? If so, what should we call it?

jakob · 2017-04-24 15:06:50

:-) Yes, what was once reborn has long since grown up. I reckon it should become part of the (core) family, so my vote would be txp:form.

Are any of the following feasible for achieving some kind of compatibility path:

Tag rewriting as part of the version upgrade functions.
Maintaining the zcr callbacks etc. for a while as aliases of the new callbacks / functions, etc. but eventually deprecating them in a future version.

RE: the perennial argument as to what is core and what is not, we have link and file and comment tags too, but they are not used in every site either.

philwareham · 2017-04-24 16:18:08

Yes from me ;)

Also a new name would negate the various 160+ page and 20+ page forum topic threads about that plugin that have built up over the years and allow fresh discussion that isn’t lost in the wind.

Since this is a very important plugin, I feel, it needs a good name and to be featured at the new Textpattern homepage as part of a group of essential plugins (hence why I proposed the name change in the first place).

My personal choice would be <txp:html_form /> since the singular name ‘form’ is part of our lexicon and would confuse users, thanks to legacy.

colak · 2017-04-24 17:36:42

jakob wrote #305461:

:-) Yes, what was once reborn has long since grown up. I reckon it should become part of the (core) family, so my vote would be txp:form.

+1 or it could be txp:contact.

jakob · 2017-04-24 21:10:30

philwareham wrote #305462:

My personal choice would be <txp:html_form /> since the singular name ‘form’ is part of our lexicon and would confuse users, thanks to legacy.

Good thinking. That’s a better idea I think and works whether in the core or not.

colak wrote #305463:

+1 or it could be txp:contact.

Except that it can do more than contact forms…

gomedia · 2017-04-25 02:54:12

+1 for txp:contact – maintains some familiarity with the past, less typing, and also we don’t then have code like <txp:html_form_text html_form="xx" />.

maverick · 2017-04-25 02:56:03

+1

Long over due.

I agree w/ Jakob out it’s importance. It has almost become an official core team supported plugin over the years, with good reason. A core dev has been its care taker. Had crockery been realized it would likely be one of the official modules, and rightly so.

To that end, I like the idea of making it an official plugin, at least for naming purposes.

(And personally, I’d rewrite the lexicon. Free the poorly name forms for this more apt use, and using something more reflective, like includes. But that horse has been beat to death more than once :) )

bici · 2017-04-25 04:23:53

+1 for txp:contact or for those that say it does more txp:contag
<Latin contāctus a touching, equivalent to _contāc- < *contag-, variant stem of contingere to touch ( con- con- + -tingere, combining form of tangere to touch) + -tus suffix of v. action; cf. tango, attain

jstubbs · 2017-04-25 04:36:46

Yes – and txp:contact sounds good. For backwards compatibility could leave the current plugin as-is so users would not have to update unless they wanted/needed to.

phiw13 · 2017-04-25 05:59:33

yes , double plus yes on renaming the plugin. As already mentioned, its status is more a core TXP module than a plugin.

I’m inclined, but ambivalent, to vote for <txp:contact />, even though, as Jacob argues, it can do more than simply a contact form. The <txp:html_form /> suggestion is a tad too verbose, and too close to TXP forms.

philwareham · 2017-04-25 06:18:09

Ok, I’ve come round to the idea of <txp:contact /> so +1 from me.

jstubbs · 2017-04-25 06:18:36

If txp:contact is too simplistic, how about txp:connect.

Textpattern CMS

Textpattern CMS support forum

#1 2017-04-24 14:22:30