4 ms·

Features is good as a concept, but in implementation it fails considerably. Here are a few issues: - How to deprecate a feature (I created http://drupal.org/no

by w4y2 14y ago

Features is good as a concept, but in implementation it fails considerably. Here are a few issues: - How to deprecate a feature (I created http://drupal.org/node/1400346 http://drupal.org/node/1400346 to attempt to solve this, but admitedly, it's a very dangerous module) - Ever created a feature with tons of things in it? Hello, 5 minute load times for admin pages! - How do you merge two features together? How do you commit just one feature and not another (say, one you're still working on?) The CMI initiative will hopefully take care of a lot of the messiness and bugs in Features.

vaporstun 14y ago
The other downside of Features in Drupal is that if we export something as a Feature (say a View) and then our site builders tweak and change that View for our clients and then we update some core element of that View and re-export the Feature, that re-export will overwrite any custom changes that were made to that View, thereby trashing any of the custom changes. This is a real problem with Features to which I'm surprised there has not yet been a good solution.
- jackbravo 14y ago
  Same problem as other frameworks. You need to know the rules. If you use rails, and the designer changes the CSS without committing the change to git, then next code push will erase his change.
jackbravo 14y ago
Right, features is not perfect. Upgrading a feature from D6 to D7 has been a pain to me. I've merged features together and it was not as hard, at the end it is all code, you just need to be very careful, but at the same time you have git to revert if something goes wrong. I don't understand the part about committing just one feature. You can commit just one =P.
exratione 14y ago
Features is indeed the answer, and all of the potential issues are manageable. I finished up a project earlier this year that has more than 300 modules active in a custom install profile, with 10MB of features modules stuck in there. We committed/contributed to a few fixes in core and Features to speed it up greatly. That's out in the wild on major sites and doing fine. We didn't have any terrible admin screen issues, or indeed any terrible issues beyond occasional painful version control collisions.

by w4y2 14y ago

vaporstun 14y ago

The other downside of Features in Drupal is that if we export something as a Feature (say a View) and then our site builders tweak and change that View for our clients and then we update some core element of that View and re-export the Feature, that re-export will overwrite any custom changes that were made to that View, thereby trashing any of the custom changes. This is a real problem with Features to which I'm surprised there has not yet been a good solution.

jackbravo 14y ago
Same problem as other frameworks. You need to know the rules. If you use rails, and the designer changes the CSS without committing the change to git, then next code push will erase his change.

jackbravo 14y ago

Right, features is not perfect. Upgrading a feature from D6 to D7 has been a pain to me. I've merged features together and it was not as hard, at the end it is all code, you just need to be very careful, but at the same time you have git to revert if something goes wrong. I don't understand the part about committing just one feature. You can commit just one =P.

exratione 14y ago

Features is indeed the answer, and all of the potential issues are manageable. I finished up a project earlier this year that has more than 300 modules active in a custom install profile, with 10MB of features modules stuck in there. We committed/contributed to a few fixes in core and Features to speed it up greatly. That's out in the wild on major sites and doing fine. We didn't have any terrible admin screen issues, or indeed any terrible issues beyond occasional painful version control collisions.