marva
...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree with the fact the UI is a matter of taste and should be flexible
> enough to change, for example by adding templates like we do for our
> frontends. And yes an admin panel with the default bloat of CMS main (nd
> DataBase, most tables come from the SiteTree (and versioning) system right?)
> but with mininal asset and security admin. In all my apps, that might not
> needed a SiteTree, I always needed a managable location to store some files
> and lock data behind a password.
> I think an empty LeftAndMain as you get when you just extend LeftAndMain
> without any methods is a great way to start building you own adminpanels.
> Ok, you might be limited to the Left (collections/navigation) Right
> (detail/editscreen) setup, but when we can add our custom templates for the
> admin, that should be fixed.
> What I really like about Silverstripe, besides the CMS, is that I can write
> like 15 lines of code to connect 3 DataObject with correct relations and SS
> will scaffold my forms and an Admin on the fly as a startingpoint. (You
> should really try to get the same functionality that in Joomla ;)). With a
> heavily extended ModelAdmin Im able to create any left or rightpane I want.
> So if talking for myself, I agree Sapphire should have at least assets and
> users and a basic admin to manage them, without the need for the complete
> SiteTree/CMS, but I dont want to reinvent the weel every project again.
> Maybe the asset and user code could be shipped with sapphire, but it is
> disabled by default, but I can toggle on when I need it with a single line
> of code. And when I do decide I need the CMS anyway it will toggle the asset
> and useradmin in the same way.
> As with the bloated MemberTable when using Decorators. I never understood
> why we should use a Decorator for assigning Data to a Member. If you have a
> Forum and a Webshop and another custom module the Membertable can explode
> with datafields. When you want to edit a ForumMember you are confronted with
> all the Webshop Fields and they other way around.
> Thats why I think a ForumRole should has_one Member and a Customer should
> have_one Member (or not when they don't want an account). And in the
> ForumAdmin you have the ForumFields and in the ShopAdmin you have the
> ShopFields to edit, nothing more.
> So to the point: strip Sapphire, but give me asset/security and a simple
> backend to manage it. I will take care of the rest, and if I want my own UI,
> give me a location where I can drop my theme..
> Cheers.
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 11:02 PM, Uncle Cheese <aaroncarl...@gmail.com>wrote:
>> Well, like I said, I don't think {$Anything}Admin belongs in the
>> framework, but maybe that's just me. When it comes to SilverStipe, I'm
>> as pious as they come, so I know I'll love and continue to use
>> exclusively whatever you guys come up with. Just sharing my thoughts!
>> -UC
>> On Feb 28, 4:32 pm, Sam Minnée <s...@silverstripe.com> wrote:
>> > On 1/03/2011, at 10:01 AM, Uncle Cheese wrote:
>> > > From my point of view, we are talking about principle, here, because
>> > > building applications with Sapphire is already possible. It's just not
>> > > the cleanest thing in the world.
>> > The dozens of unnecessary tables that are created are a little more than
>> principle.
>> > > It just doesn't make a
>> > > whole lot of sense to be managing this sort of data in the same place
>> > > that you create a new account for the CMS, which only requires 3
>> > > fields.
>> > However, I'd say that a simple UI for creating and re-setting people's
>> passwords is a sufficiently common to include with the main product. I've
>> certainly needed it pretty much everything I've worked on.
>> > > I guess I just feel like, if I'm at the point where I'm
>> > > creating my own admin interfaces for everything, why include all that
>> > > extra bloat?
>> > I don't think everyone will create their own admin interfaces for
>> everything. Plenty of people will be happy with an out-of-the-box UI for
>> internal business functions.
>> > As a related point, what about ModelAdmin? This is something that
>> plenty of people find useful and makes total sense in a outside of the
>> managed-cotnent context.
>> > Finally, would you feel differently if you actually liked the design of
>> the out-of-the-box UI, and/or it was easily extendable and themeable, both
>> of which are goals for SilverStripe 3?
>> > > I think as a starting point, I would say we should aim to keep a
>> > > framework invisible.
>> > ...
>> > > You shouldn't be able to tell your colleague what
>> > > Sapphire looks like, or what Symfony looks like.
>> > I disagree; comparisons to Symfony aren't relevant because this is a way
>> that we can differentiate ourselves.
>> > > You may have misunderstood me... I certainly don't want a framework
>> > > that lean.
>> > I was simply trying to explain the logical consequence of saying "No
>> UI". The Forms systems *is* UI, especially the more complex fields.
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "SilverStripe Core Development" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to silverstripe-dev@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> silverstripe-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/silverstripe-dev?hl=en.
