"Greg Berlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >That's a really good analysis of "CMS" systems Kepler... > You're spot on about the different types.
I agree - nice breakdown. > I've used other "CMS" systems before too - Drupal, Joomla, DotNetNuke - > all of these are more "Portals" than CMS systems, as they allow somebody > to quickly and easily build a website, but customisation is very > difficult (eg: try add an extra field to a Joomla 'article' - its pretty > much impossible), and custom development (building modules etc) has a > VERY steep learning curve. Plus, and "modules" that you use in these > systems can't be customised, so IMO you're better off with a Framework - > more work to get setup, but in the end it'll even out in the time saved > trying to customise / extend available modules. My experience has been very different to this with Drupal. Customisation with Drupal is the primary reason we have adopted it. In particular, the Form API is very powerful and the specific case of 'adding a field' is very straight-forward. It requires PHP code, but not much (a few lines). One module can alter another module's forms, allowing customisation while maintaining clear separation of responsibilities. There is a learning curve, as there would be for any CMS, but nothing that http://drupal.org and http://www.drupalbook.com/ can't handle. Regards Jonathan ************************************************************** Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] **************************************************************
