When I set out to build a new Open Source webmail program last year, one of the main things I wanted to accomplish was a robust plugin system. In the past, I designed functionality not unlike the way WordPress plugins work (which is not unlike the way Squirrelmail plugins work, my first exposure to the concept). I think the strength of a plugin system really helps grow an Open Source project. Would WordPress be such a dominant CMS if the plugin ecosystem was not so vast? During its heyday, Squirrelmail had a vibrant add-on community, and a lot of new users were drawn to the project because of it. Many core developers of that project started out writing plugins, including me.
I decided to take a different approach this time around. What if instead of having a core flow of execution that plugins can add to or alter, everything was a plugin? If all the work needed to process a request was modular, it would provide a way for sites to customize almost anything about the application without having to hack a core file or implement a crazy workaround. It would also make it possible to customize the app simply by including the plugins you want. I decided to build the application this way, and while it turned out a teeny-tiny bit complicated, the results are pretty cool if I do say so myself. And I do.
The system is composed of three distinct components. The “framework” which processes a page request and provides high level constructs for things like session management and page routing. “modules sets” that provide specific types of functionality, such as an IMAP module set that let’s you access IMAP E-mail accounts, and individual “modules” inside of sets, that do a small piece of work. The framework provides an execution environment for module sets. Module sets assign modules to request identifiers and define allowed input and output types. Finally, individual modules do the work of processing page input and building page output. Let’s pretend that was not complicated, because there’s more!
Module sets can override each other and replace module assignments done by other sets, or insert a module before or after a module assigned by another set. There is only one required set, the “core” modules. Sites can override core functionality in this set, but it must be included for the others to work. Of course, some or all of it could be replaced with something completely site specific, which means you could change the program into virtually any type of web application you want, and still get the benefit of the lightweight framework.
One of the best things about this system is it requires module sets to white-list and type-cast user input. Modules cannot access standard PHP super globals – they must use the provided data framework, because those super globals are mercilessly unset before modules execute. Modules also have easy output escaping and string translating functionality built-in, so there are no complicated procedures to safely output untrusted data. Modules are designed to have a single purpose, so they end up being concise, which makes auditing and testing easier. Modules use inheritance to access data they need, there is no need to resort to global scope (the application framework and all the included module sets don’t use any PHP globals).
To date, I have built more than 15 module sets using this system. So far, I think it’s pretty neat. It’s complicated, but it provides a structured way to modify the program with a safer-than-most API while maintaining a concise separation of concerns. It’s definitely more complex than a lot of plugin systems out there, but also more powerful with an eye on overall performance. At the very least, I think we can all agree that “module set” sounds way cooler than “plugin”, so that’s a plus.