I agree that databases are very, very powerful but they also introduce fundamental limitations. It depends on your priorities.
For instance, we've found that the processes companies pursue for editing documentation can be every bit as fluid, complex and partitioned as source code. I'd ask you, as a serious thought experiment, to consider what the ramifications of managing OFBiz itself in a Jackrabbit repository. Please don't just punt on me and say "oh, well source code is different". That's an argument by dismissal and glosses over real-world situations where you might have a pilot group editing a set of process documentation based on the core corporate standards, folding in changes from "HEAD" as well as developing their own changes in conjunction. I've just personally found that the distributed revision control function is fundamental to managing the kinds of real content that ends up on websites. Maybe you haven't. Scott Gray wrote: > This isn't about casting stones or attempting to belittle webslinger, which I > have no doubt is a fantastic piece of work and meets its stated goals > brilliantly. 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). > 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? > -- Ean Schuessler, CTO [email protected] 214-720-0700 x 315 Brainfood, Inc. http://www.brainfood.com
