On Oct 13, 6:10 am, Iain Duncan <iainduncanli...@gmail.com> wrote: > I challenge anyone who has dismissed it, to sit a client down in front of a > traversal based CMS and watch them. Wow, you don't need to tell them > anything, they get it right away because it looks and acts *just like their > file system*. We, the *developers*, love Rest APIs. They make perfect clean > sense, but look at those urls. They match our persistancy scheme, they match > how the database thinks, not how the user thinks. As we try to sell people > on our CMS compared to Drupal, the main selling point is honestly that they > find administering a traversal based CMS very easy to understand, and they > can find things easily. Users hate not being able to find how to changes > something ( looking at you, Drupal, gag! )
It's funny you use this example. One of the main reasons we ended up as Drupal users years ago was the fact it wasn't a "traversal" CMS with a separate administrative backend. It was (and still is) hard to find a CMS that doesn't have this implicit assumption that you place content in a hierarchical tree/menu as if you were dealing with an old file system like static site. That way we could have all kinds of different areas with different architectures - eg flexible tagging based knowledge bases, static tree like brochures, community driven public and private user groups etc, and even have content appearing in multiple contexts. But now that Drupal 7 has possibly jumped the shark complexity wise, and looking like it will be a massive upgrade effort for us from Drupal 6, I'm starting to think more about using Pyramid and/or Plone. Drupal is now looking almost as heavyweight and complex as Plone, and these days Plone doesn't look (to my uneducated eyes) as rigid as it used to. Or I could treat our site not as a heavily customised CMS, but as a custom webapp all of its own by hardcoding in our CMS configurations and build it with Pyramid with some 3rd party libraries. ie have I reached the point where the ongoing CMS customisation is more work than recreating the subset of CMS functionality we need on top of a lower level framework? Pyramid has (looking from the outside at least) a lot of stuff that is tempting eg: being able to use traversal and url dispatch together, event hooks, a very flexible non-opinionated architecture, growing momentum and a smart developer/user community. The flip side of all this cool stuff is that it can seem a bit daunting. I would be very interested in reading your experiences of traversal, and how you combined it with RESTful backend stuff (I'm assuming that part was based on URL dispatch). Even information on how CMS like functionality is best built with Pyramid would be highly appreciated. Are there any emerging libraries or docs for handling the common parts of "Content Management" in Pyramid. I suspect there is stuff happening in that area, but that it's all a bit fragmented or immature at this stage. Is there any desire for a higher level content management development community to form around Pyramid? -- Cheers Anton -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pylons-discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to pylons-discuss@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pylons-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en.
