Re: Yikes! Must be more careful with hook names!
Reply #4 –
I kind of liked having dispatch in the name as I'd know where to find it. But as long as the conflicts are cleared I'm ok with whatever naming scheme you go with.
I do appreciate everyone's responses to these bug reports. Thank you.
Re: Yikes! Must be more careful with hook names!
Reply #5 –
If you (all) prefer dispatch it can be changed, I used action because it reflects more what the hook is about (the action) and not the place the hook is called (the dispatcher).
For example, tomorrow the dispatcher may be renamed to router, but the hooks would stay the same because what they do is let you hook the action. Of course rename action would be tricky. Well, hypothetical situations, I don't think we are going to rename dispatcher any time soon, so not very useful.
That said: Dispatch deals with actions, while Action deals with sub-actions. I never really liked that because it leads to confusion IMHO.
Probably Action was better named as Area_Dispatch or something like this.
Dunno if it is worth changing now, also because keep backward compatibility is pretty easy in that case, it's just a matter of changing the class to a wrapper, so it could be changed even in 1.1.