On 10/12/2010 3:39 PM, Scott Gray wrote:
This is about debating why it should be included in OFBiz as a tightly
integrated CMS and how well webslinger's goals match up with OFBiz's content
requirements (whatever they are, I don't pretend to know).
I thought one of the goals was to replace OFBiz's content repository
with something off-the-shelf. The idea behind using JCR was to avoid
being locked into a specific product. In other words, if OFBiz talks to
JCR, then OFBiz can use any JCR-compliant repository.
That's why I asked Adam if there would be a JCR interface for
webslinger. Webslinger could be one of many JCR-compliant repositories
to choose from.
I believe another thing that comes into play in this discussion is how
people are picturing a CMS being used in OFBiz. I get the impression
Adam pictures it being used for website authoring. On the other hand, I
picture OFBiz retrieving documents from existing corporate repositories
to be served up in web pages. So, an "OFBiz CMS" might mean different
things to different people, and each person's requirement might drive
the decision to use Webslinger or something else.
-Adrian
Webslinger was included in the framework with little to no discussion and I'm
trying to take the opportunity to have that discussion now.
I'm not trying to add FUD to the possibility of webslinger taking a more active
role in OFBiz, I'm just trying to understand what is being proposed and what
the project stands to gain or lose by accepting that proposal.
Version control with git and the ability to edit content with vi is great but what are we
giving up in exchange for that? Surely there must be something lacking in a file system
approach if the extremely vast majority of CMS vendors have shunned it in favor of a
database (or database + file system) approach? I just cannot accept that all of these
vendors simply said "durp durp RDMBS! durp durp". What about non-hierarchical
node linking? Content meta-data? Transaction management? Referential integrity? Node
types?
Regards
Scott
On 13/10/2010, at 11:01 AM, Ean Schuessler wrote:
We think its interesting and handy to manage our web content using GIT.
Its hard to do that with JackRabbit, especially in its preferred
configuration of a database backed store. I think that is a pretty
reasoned explanation. I don't see Adam or I casting stones at your CMS
test application so please consider lightening up. Thanks. :-D
Scott Gray wrote:
To be honest it makes it a little difficult to take you seriously when you
completely disregard the JCR/Jackrabbit approach without even the slightest
hint of objectivity
if (!myWay) {
return highway;
}
The JCR was produced by an expert working group driven largely by Day Software
which has Roy T. Fielding as their chief scientist. While I know next to
nothing about what constitutes a great CMS infrastructure I cannot simply
accept that you are right and they are wrong especially when you make no
attempt whatsoever to paint the full picture, I mean are you suggesting that a
file system based CMS has no downsides? Your approach is filled with pros and
their's all cons?
--
Ean Schuessler, CTO
e...@brainfood.com
214-720-0700 x 315
Brainfood, Inc.
http://www.brainfood.com
