On 2/8/06, J. Wolfgang Kaltz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Andreas Hartmann schrieb: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> Presentation configuration will be moved > >> inside Modules. While none of the old definitions of "Resource" are > >> needed, the word is already used by Lenya, and should be used before > >> adding a new word. > > As I understood it, the term "resource" is rejected by most developers, > > because the meaning is too general. But I guess "resource" vs. > > "content item" will be a never-ending story unless we do a vote and > > all developers commit to the decision. > > IMO we need to distinguish between pieces of content to be managed by > the CMS (Lenya) and other "stuff", for which Lenya may also potentially > provide interfaces: what about the XSL stylesheets for example. They are > not content and should not be seen by content maintainers. They are > however resources of the CMS and, maybe, one day in the future, they > will be editable within the CMS (administration area? a new "design > area"? but that day, they still won't be content)
You cheated. I am introducing the concepts slowly, and you jumped to the back of the book. Yes, if we define "Resource" as the parent object that maintains the Security, Translations (languages), and Revisions of all objects under Content, then the same object will be used to maintain the Security, Translations, and Revisions of functional resources. You even called them "RESOURCES of the CMS". "Areas" are being replaced by "Modules" (at least in my mind.) It will be easy to add a Module to edit anything in the Lenya fileSystem/repository. Security will be very important, and the Resource class will already have proven code from handling Content. > That's why I favor explicitly having the word "content" in whatever > terminology we use to describe pieces of content. Thus my proposal a > while back (http://wiki.apache.org/lenya/ProposalContentModel), where > "ContentItem" is a piece of content (or ContentNugget, or whatever), and > a Document is a collection of such pieces. I dislike multiple-word terms when single-word terms suffice. "Item" would become overloaded. The currently common use of "Item" in Lenya is "an Element of a Document", much lower on the tree than Content. > I am not trying to say "I am right, why doesn't everybody agree" ;) > But to be honest, I still haven't understood what is wrong with the > proposal above. I am not fighting for the word "Resource". I want a consistent terminology. If anybody has a term that is better understandable as the superset of Documents and Assets, I will immediately support it. I spent time with a Thesaurus because there is much resistance to "Resource", but did not find a better term. Is "Resource" an insult in some language? It has no negative connotations in American English. solprovider --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
