[Resolved] Feedback relating to future compatibility with Bricks Builder

[Author]

Posts

[Stephen Vaughan]

I am just am currently completing a full deep dive into using Bricks Builder.

My question relates to Toolset compatibility.

There are a few instances where Toolset doesn't integrate with the Bricks native query loop, specifically for repeating fields and relationships. One has to fall back to views and templates and then insert thses with shortcodes. There is one onther use case relating to excluding items from the query loop and it uses the built in meta query option:

hidden link

The latter is rather edge case and there are other workarounds for this.

Will there any future updates with Types to closer integration with Bricks Builder?

In relation to the above, if that isn't in a future roadmap, I would like some honest feedback on where Toolset is going and how much it is now soley dedicated to the block editor method for views and templates.

Beyound a niche following, the very unpopular Gutenberg project hasn't been received well in the broader WordPress community. I tried using it on a number of projects and found it farily unweildy compared to using the older conventional HTML/CSS/JS interface for views and templates. While the block editor semmingly offers an easy codeless route for novice users, for more proficient developers and designers it is a hindrance.

I just updates my Gutenberg review on the WordPress site, taking it back from two stars to one, such has been my expereince of trying to use it for the last number of years. The fact that the review includes the paragraph comment tags (see image attached) says a lot about the shoddiness of the Gutenburg project.

I'll add that there hasn't been any stand out additions to Toolset for quite a while. As it is I wouldn't be expecting such things as it is a fairly fleshed out toolkit as is, but, small things like suggestions to remove the trash feature on a parent item in a child/parent relationship has never been addressed. The fact that such an action is possible goes against the rules of datlabase integrity, leaving the potential scenario of orphaned children.

I will be reviewing my subscripotion in the next year, taking into consideration other products. In this light it would be good to get some feedback from someone higher up, someone that make the big decisions at Toolset.

[Nigel]

Hi Stephen

Little has changed from our official pronouncements about the future of Toolset, particularly with regards to support for page builders.

Toolset went all-in on the block editor precisely to escape from the distraction of supporting an ever-expanding universe of page builders and the burdens that places on development and support. We are too far down that road to change again, and we won't be adding support for new page builders that appear from time-to-time.

More generally the focus remains on product maintenance rather than development of new features. We added a new developer to the team recently and as they become more familiar with the project that should help with the pace of updates. Personally I am hopeful that we'll arrive at a position where the pace of releases outpaces that of new issues to such an extent that we are able to resume some limited feature development work, for some of the most popular requests, but that's not something that can be relied on.

The legacy version of Toolset is pretty stable and we will continue to actively maintain it, knowing that there are many existing sites that depend on it and a cohort of Toolset clients who prefer it. It's not going anywhere.

[Stephen Vaughan]

Thanks Nigel for the honest answer. I totaly get the maintanence heaache of serving all the page bulders. out there.

I think I'll just continue with the TS template and views workaround for getting repeaters and related content into layouts in Bricks and Divi. Views ceratiny seems very stable and is very poerful as is, so there is some value for me to stick with it.