Received: by 10.224.61.2 with SMTP id r2mr438764qah.1.1298917723842;
        Mon, 28 Feb 2011 10:28:43 -0800 (PST)
X-BeenThere: silverstripe-dev@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.224.185.141 with SMTP id co13ls849684qab.2.p; Mon, 28 Feb 2011
 10:28:43 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.224.205.199 with SMTP id fr7mr134365qab.46.1298917723142; Mon,
 28 Feb 2011 10:28:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: by e9g2000vbk.googlegroups.com with HTTP; Mon, 28 Feb 2011 10:28:43
 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2011 10:28:43 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <2B5A2EA5-3DFD-421B-9916-E89BC2C986AB@silverstripe.com>
X-IP: 83.140.180.131
References: <2B5A2EA5-3DFD-421B-9916-E89BC2C986AB@silverstripe.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10_6_6; en-US)
 AppleWebKit/534.13 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/9.0.597.19 Safari/534.13,gzip(gfe)
Message-ID: <ae883bac-d724-4ec5-aa5a-e4cfa92625bc@e9g2000vbk.googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Sapphire / CMS Split
From: stojg <stojg.lindqv...@gmail.com>
To: SilverStripe Core Development <silverstripe-dev@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Sam,

I was actually thinking about this today. I wondered if I should
migrate a standalone application to only use the sapphire module for
the ORM.

My problem was that I still wanted to use the permission and role
system and wondered if which of these options I should use:
 * Using 'Front-end' forms, that is, writing my own admin
 * Extract the LeftAndMain, SecurityAdmin and necessary code to a
standalone drop in module.
 * Include the cms module and to heck with all

I would like to have it as a standalone module, but I'm not really
sure on how much changes that will bring to the code.

I will probably just include the whole cms and might even hit my
deadline :)

On Feb 28, 12:18=A0am, Sam Minn=E9e <s...@silverstripe.com> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> One of the things that we're planning for SilverStripe 3.0 is to have a c=
learer split between Sapphire and the CMS. =A0We've given this a bit of tho=
ught internally, and I want to recommend an idea that may at first glance s=
eem strange.
>
> I think that we should include ModelAdmin and LeftAndMain in sapphire, no=
t in CMS.
>
> Why is this? =A0I have a shallow reason and a deep reason.
>
> =A0- The shallow reason is SecurityAdmin. =A0Without it, the permission s=
ystem is non-configurable and of limited use. =A0Pulling that out of Sapphi=
re would leave Sapphire a little impotent. =A0If we include SecurityAdmin, =
we need to include LeftAndMain.
>
> =A0- This raises a deeper issue. =A0We are wanting to split of Sapphire, =
not for an abstract architectural purity, but so that it can be used to bui=
ld applications that don't fit nicely into the 'managed content' paradigm. =
=A0For myself, developing Dawn was such an application. =A0I have also work=
ed on other client applications that I can't get into detail about. =A0In a=
ll of these cases, having a security management user interface, and having =
the ability to quickly create generic admin interfaces (with ModelAdmin) wa=
s very useful.
>
> The end result will be that Sapphire gives you:
>
> =A0- An MVC/ORM framework
> =A0- A permission model, including a generic UI for editing permissions
> =A0- A quick way of making generic administrative interfaces
>
> What do people think of this?
>
> On a smaller note, I think that the File & AssetAdmin system is fairly he=
avily tied to the CMS, and so should be in the CMS module and not sapphire.
>
> Thanks,