Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 26
  1. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    2,882
    Quote Originally Posted by aboveAverage View Post
    What is a drupal?
    http://drupal.org/


    And for the topic i had a thought about this.. wouldnt a major issue in a given CMS system be a basic structure that could be utilized by modules later on.

    Here im talking stuff like users, login, pages and comments as the bare minimum skeleton. Think about whats the most simple "site" people would build.
    A site with a few pages and a login for themselves and perhaps users to make comments. One page should be able to be a "news feed" type page.

    Then other types of pages should be easily available though a modular system and furthermore enable the wrapping of the layout around a third party page ?

    I am just guessing and i know (all too well) thats its not that simple, but i think a think people would love would be the buildings of a basic skeleton they could improve upon as needed as modular as possible
    Swoop - Buzzed Pirate!
    " If nobodys talking to me, im talking to me" - Swoop

    Reflection Design || Swoops Blog

    2D Tutorials Compilation

    The Speed Painting Thread || ((post your Concept Art thread))


  2. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Worst Case Ontario
    Posts
    7,446
    I figured it out. I don't think that's what Toastage was looking for. At first I thought it was a tasty Indian dish or a transsexual supermodel. I'm sorted now. So it's basically like Blogger..with an unfortunate name.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    200
    I would love to see something like this. Put me on the list. (if there is one)

    Lent
    -Lent

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    0
    <rant>
    Man, I am SICK of "modular" crap so much I want to tear out my hair. In my job I have to deal with "modular" software all of the time such as Document Management (Knowledge Tree), groupware (Sugar CRM/eGroupware) E-commerce (OsCommerce) and I am fed up with them.

    First off, they are all slow. Sugar CRM is the fastest piece out of all software, and it is also the most complex, but it still is agonizing to use (on a local network even!). Looking at the code you see "modular" crap like the Zend Framework in which the call stack is just about full right about where you actually get to putting markup on the screen. I've seen "modular" components in these "modular" systems taking more time to set up, configure and tear down then actually doing their job (printing HTML).

    Next off they are way way too complex. It took me an hour to find a single template in Knowledge Tree today. Why? Because it was being generated by a "widget" module fed from Zend's form module that was fed an array of form elements that existed in the controller class that was buried deep in the folder structure. Their solution to having to compile 50 smarty templates (not kidding) per page request? Caching and compiling them. Unfortunately, I could not locate the smarty code to disable caching while I was messing with the code. That meant each time I changed something I had to "rm -Rf ./tmp; mkdir ./tmp; chown www-data ./tmp".

    They are also not compatible with eachother. Making Knowlage Tree talk to Sugar CRM requires making a plugin for SugarCRM - then making modifications to KT's SOAP service, upload code and database.

    Another thing is code re-use. Let's say one day I want a form in KT in my own app... Well, I have to grab Zend Framework, KT's translate code, KT's widget code, and KT's view code in order to make it work. By the time that is done I have so much code duplication that it makes it not worth the time anymore.

    My conclusion? MAKE SOFTWARE THIN. I have recently been developing a few Javascript modules; but for each one I make it COMPLETELY self contained. This was like a Godsend to me as I can now literally drop my code in anywhere.

    Look; things like the Zend framework are not worth it. You do not need complex code for complex software. Instead, depend on the fewest libraries (including your own framework) as much as possible. You will be much happier.
    </rant>

    I know this has nothing to do with Tostages thread; but if you do make these vids please take a look at my advice I'm sure there are good "modular" packages out there; but I have yet to see one.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    3,140
    I think you misinterpret the idea of this thread. I'm not asking for someone to build me a cms and the convenient bi product of that is a vtm series. I'm suggesting a php project for martinco and friends to ponder. A perfect project for people on this site is a portfolio with a back end. Nobody is suggesting you build a new cms for people to use as their websites. What I am suggesting is someone teach people how to build a cms for their websites. Something you should be all for in your anti cms take.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Toastage View Post
    I think you misinterpret the idea of this thread. I'm not asking for someone to build me a cms and the convenient bi product of that is a vtm series. I'm suggesting a php project for martinco and friends to ponder. A perfect project for people on this site is a portfolio with a back end. Nobody is suggesting you build a new cms for people to use as their websites. What I am suggesting is someone teach people how to build a cms for their websites. Something you should be all for in your anti cms take.
    Oh. That makes more seance. The word "modular" was what got me in my ranting mode because today's 8hrs of work consisted of me integrating three awful "modular" CMSs together.

    A simple CMS is easy thought but it would be a good topic, like you pointed out, to make. Perhaps I might find time and show everybody what a "real" modular CMS is

    I'm not saying I'm better then the authors of Sugar CRM or KT - but I am saying that they have a really misguided seance of modularity and performance.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Nr London, UK
    Posts
    831
    Before people come on here, and just reply because its Nelson:

    You raise a fair few valid points.

    Modularity IS GOOD!

    monolithic coding is a thing of the past, even BSD even went to a modular kernel. Kill one module/unload it, not a recompile of the entire system. One buggy kernel messing things up? remove that module. Impossible to do in a single file monolithic architecture. If programming was perfect, then maybe it would be better to go for the former.

    Now Whilst I agree with projects that aim to cater for everyone tend to be clunky and slow (I'll add PHP-Nuke, PHP-Fusion, and any of the other horrid layout things) but that is not the aim of these, should they go ahead.

    Now thinking a different way:

    The Code for the modules still needs to be read, i'm not talking on the fly code generation (as in php code, rather than html). Its not much of a loss compared with the restrictions.

    As you say, Fragmentation Penalty does occur, but this occurs naturally, i mean, why on earth doesn't everyone just use a single php file, go though and optimise for speed and efficiency?

    I mean, it cuts out include files, cuts out extra code, cuts out soo mcuh stuff - WHY!

    Probably because we are humans, coding by nature of includes/requires is modular, so why not make the most by extracting those parts which do the front end, and leave those at the back end do their own thing?

    Header, Title bar areas should be contained, page layouts = modules, the content of the modules in the DB (nothing sounds different to being hard coded to a single layout here!).

    Modularity with fixed bounds is good.
    Modularity with which people try and cater for evey single posibility = Slow.

    OsCommerce by its nature would be sluggish(emphasis on the ish) - (tis a view rather than experiance), the fact it is an online shop, which there is not a one size fits all approach and yet a single application to fit "All your shopping needs". That tells you something about it.
    Last edited by martinco; 11-05-2008 at 04:14 AM.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    South Australia
    Posts
    4,521
    OK, Everything you said about those particular frameworks/cms/software I agree with completely. I have done enough hacking on LiteCommerce to realise that too much of the time you spend is working out how to do things the 'LiteCommerce' way. Amazingly though once you figure it out it is really easy. It's a frustrating paradox, everything is too hard until you figure out how, then it is easy.

    What you have said is precisely the reason I wrote my own CMS for our clients from scratch. It was easier than trying to mold something like Joomla to do what we wanted (allow 'stupid' customers to manage their website with minimal fuss).

    However, I think you are confusing what this thread is actually about. The goal here is not to reuse some modular framework to do something new. It is about creating a modular CMS from scratch for people to use in their websites. Modular in the sense that it should be relatively easy for people to add/remove/write new modules to suit their needs. For example, suppose they want a mailing list module. The core (admin layout, database, session/user management, etc) is in place and making new modules should just mean a couple of new files and maybe some function calls. It is certainly possible to have a modular, lightweight CMS.

    Modular is a good thing. I think your rant is more about trying to do small things with overly giant frameworks.

    EDIT - Following on from what MartinCo said, it depends on the goals of the project. A CMS that tries to be the be all and end all and service everyone's needs will end up being big, slow, and do everything in an average way. My CMS for example had very specific design goals (be super easy to use, not too hard to customise) means it does that reasonably well, but it will never do everything for everyone (its not supposed to).
    Last edited by mr_charisma; 11-05-2008 at 04:13 AM.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Nr London, UK
    Posts
    831
    One More thing;

    My general Philosophy for CMSs is that you design/make the site, when its finalised (if ever) you make the CMS to cater for thats sites needs.

    CMS does NOT equal fully customisable front end. 99% of the time, its purely management.

    How do i add a new news story?

    You use a CMS!

    Doesn't have to be fancy, could be just

    <form>
    <textarea name=post>
    <input type=submit value=submit>
    </form>

    on a page and be done with it - CMS is not (as often is portrayed) a biiig ugly Creature but a simple solution to a problem. As MrCharisma says really.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    South Australia
    Posts
    4,521
    Quote Originally Posted by martinco View Post
    My general Philosophy for CMSs is that you design/make the site, when its finalised (if ever) you make the CMS to cater for thats sites needs.
    YES YES YES YES YES!

    If you're designing a website and constantly thinking about making it work how the CMS wants you to do things your web designs will suffer. The person writing the CMS should be catering to the web design (provided the design doesn't ask for the impossible), not the other way around.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •