On 26.01.2012, at 15:42, bill richardson wrote:
> I think the discussion should be about what should be retained - if
> ucm is adopted, there is an opportunity to dismiss backward
> compatability and just provide one content component to demonstrate an
> application based on the platform.
> If you look at the bug lists and the number of issues open or
> confirmed , is it not the time to adopt the KISS approach and simplify
> the cms application.
> The one content component should have the abilities of a cck
> ( examples are k2 and yootheme zoo ) as this is one of the most
> requested features on the wish list.
A CCK would be nice and would definitively remove the need for quite some stuff. However I don't realistically see us getting there with 3.0. I'd be happy with just getting our content components to use the UCM internally.
> Another desirable feature would be the ability to easily create your
> own component,module or plugin.
You mean something like com_jfoobar?
> Extra feature that where introduced in 2.5 like user notes , smart
> search do not belong in the core but should be available as extensions
> for those users who require them and flawed implementions like user
> profiles should be removed.
I'm indifferent to user notes but I really think search is a core concern. Extensions will only provide the adapter for so and so many solutions. A strong search is, in my opinion, very important for a content management system.
> One other big issue remains is the seperation of the platform from the
> application(cms ) layer that has not been started, or the possibility
> to abstract the mvc to reduce the amount of duplicate code. Does j
> content not belong in the application layer ? , anything that mentions
> tables or contains specific queries belongs in the application and not
> the platform.
The platform recently started identifying classes that will be moved out of the platform with the next major release (12.1/3.0). This process will probably take a long time since many classes a coupled surprisingly strong.
JContent is a pretty generic implementation that can hold a lot of different data, I think it's fine keeping it inside the platform.
Rouven
I think the discussion should be about what should be retained - if
ucm is adopted, there is an opportunity to dismiss backward
compatability and just provide one content component to demonstrate an
application based on the platform.
If you look at the bug lists and the number of issues open or
confirmed , is it not the time to adopt the KISS approach and simplify
the cms application.
I agree with Michael that the com media component needs updated and
there are plenty of extensions available that show a better way to
handle images.
The one content component should have the abilities of a cck
( examples are k2 and yootheme zoo ) as this is one of the most
requested features on the wish list.
Another desirable feature would be the ability to easily create your
own component,module or plugin.
Extra feature that where introduced in 2.5 like user notes , smart
search do not belong in the core but should be available as extensions
for those users who require them and flawed implementions like user
profiles should be removed.
One other big issue remains is the seperation of the platform from the
application(cms ) layer that has not been started, or the possibility
to abstract the mvc to reduce the amount of duplicate code. Does j
content not belong in the application layer ? , anything that mentions
tables or contains specific queries belongs in the application and not
the platform.
Regards
Bill
Bummer, though there's a good case for a distro that handles the
exception, not the rule :)
> More information is needed on ucm ( what is happening to
> categories,user groups ) and does assets / acl need updated.
For what I'm working on at work, it's likely the assets table won't be
required anymore, at least not in custom apps that I'll be supporting.
The ACL is still based on the JSON rules, but I've devised a better
API in the authorisation package. There was some concern during the
initial talks about make the ACL pluggable and the authorisation
package opens that door.
User groups would still form part of the user management system, but
user profiles would/should be covered in the UCM.
Categories are still a bit up in the air but there will probably be
some "equivalent" - jury is still out on that one.
> Will the cms use the ucm as exists in framework or will/can they
> extend to suit their needs.
> Andrew you mentioned table mapping - has Doctrine been considered ?
So, with a Data Mapper, you can do whatever you want. You can have a
mapper that connects to the database in home grown way, or you could
use one based on Doctrine or similar (though, I have a passionate
dislike for the ORM frameworks that define their relationships in the
docblocks). That's one of the beauties of the Data Mapper pattern and
the way I've built it so far allows for interchangeable connectors
between the value objects and the data source. It's still got a ways
to go but hopefully something can be presented before 12.1 is out the
door.
Regards,
Andrew Eddie
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Joomla! CMS Development" group.
> To post to this group, send an email to joomla-...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to joomla-dev-cm...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/joomla-dev-cms?hl=en-GB.
>
Another interesting functionality would be to think of a standard
miniature �pluguin without many features other than the decrease of
images. This functionality exists already for a long time in Wordpress
and Joomla! whenever we talk about this possibility of guy is always
highlighted, why?
Greetings brothers Joomla!
hugs
Karlos Rik�ryo
Joomla! Brazil
www.rikaryo.com.br