I just recognized, you allready created this sandbox. Yesterday I published a sandbox for the same purpose: http://drupal.org/sandbox/derhasi/1330556

On a quick view I recognized some differences in our code. Maybe we can find the "best" way and merge the sandbox to a full project or merge it back to boxes.

Some notes on my code:

  • Decided to use "blocks:boxes:{delta}:..." and the "Blocks" textgroup, to ease user experience on translation interface
  • therefore unset some i18nblocks behaviour
  • placed fieldset with link to translation interface (and concrete strings) on the add/edit box form
  • rewrote i18nstring_text() to use formatter on default output (as boxes living in code might not have called i18nstring_update)


jwilson3’s picture

Duplicate of #3.

jwilson3’s picture

I believe the code between these to modules should be merged into one, and should remain as a standalone project (like i18n_views) or be included in the i18n project, not boxes, if anywhere. However, that would require buy in from i18n maintainers, which i doubt will happen any time soon, and so I think, rather this module should stay separate.

I prefer consistency with the namespace convention adopted by derhasi with the underscore in the project name. However, our team has already ported this version (i18nboxes) to Drupal7. Though its not contributed yet.

I'd love to see two things happen:

1) The maintainers come up with a combined solution, using the ideal namespace (i18n_boxes) and publish the project.

2) We could help write the d7 port of the finalized module.

Derhasi, I havent reviewed your code, but are there any changes that you could make to addapt bits of your code into the code of i18nboxes, such that the d7 port would be less work?


jwilson3’s picture

Duplicate of #3.

jwilson3’s picture

Without any response from either maintainer, I've taken the liberty to fork benclark's version, so we could commit our Drupal 7 version of the module.


There are principally just api changes at this point. I did review derhasi's version, and found it to be mostly the same, except for the few features mentioned in the OP. I did not find them to be completely necessary to get the code working solidly on Drupal 7, so did not incorporate any of those features, but would not be opposed to discussing inclusion of those features on our queue.

I'd also like to extend an offer to work closely with the both of you, or either of you, and wouldn't mind adding either of you as maintainers of the Drupal 6 branch, if in fact you are interested to help maintain this going forward.

Thanks guys for getting the ball rolling -- we're just doing our part to keep the momentum up.

benclark’s picture

I agree completely that the code should be merged and I'm sorry that I've been absent from this thread. Thanks for taking the initiative on this!

If I can help out in any way to get a 6.x release up on the new project, I'm at your disposal.

Sounds like the 6.x branch might need some backporting of the changes you've made for 7.x, since it probably makes sense for us to try to keep the two codebases as similar as possible.

I'd be happy to work as a co-maintainer, or I can submit a patch for the initial 6.x commit and we can go from there.

Thanks again for taking ownership of this module. I'll update this sandbox with instructions on moving to the new project.

jwilson3’s picture

Status:Active» Closed (fixed)

Hey Ben.

Cheers, we'd be happy to bring you on to co-maintain the D6 branch.

I've added you as co-maintainer, and added #1546208: Stable Drupal 6 release for I18n_Boxes to our queue.

jwilson3’s picture

Title:Merge work with my sandbox or boxes» Merge derhasi's sandbox changes
Project:i18nboxes» i18n Boxes
Component:Miscellaneous» Code
Status:Closed (fixed)» Active

Actually, we should move this to our queue, as the original issue is still valid.

In comparison, the only feature that derhasi implemented that I would be interested to implement would be:

  • placed fieldset with link to translation interface (and concrete strings) on the add/edit box form

The other items seem to me to be unnecessary changes, as boxes are not blocks. The UI distinguishes them in other places, so there is not reason to call them "blocks" in the i18n_strings UI.

jwilson3’s picture

Project:i18n Boxes» Boxes translation
Version:» 7.x-1.x-dev