For me it all comes to down to a couple of basic but very important points: - Webslinger by your own admission takes a vastly different approach from anything else on the market and you're asking the OFBiz community to take that risk along with you and ignore what everyone else is doing. - Webslinger has no community behind it and is the product and vision of a single company (and within that probably only a single developer understands it deeply). OFBiz takes a big risk by depending upon it in any meaningful way for bugfixes, support and documentation, both now and in the future. Name me one other major external library in OFBiz that doesn't come from a well established open source community.
I don't pretend for a second to be an expert on the topic of content management but I can see those risks staring me in the face. At the end of the day if the community wants webslinger then they'll get it but blindly ignoring the risks does no one any good. Regards Scott On 14/10/2010, at 12:34 PM, Ean Schuessler wrote: > I agree that databases are very, very powerful but they also introduce > fundamental limitations. It depends on your priorities. > > For instance, we've found that the processes companies pursue for > editing documentation can be every bit as fluid, complex and partitioned > as source code. I'd ask you, as a serious thought experiment, to > consider what the ramifications of managing OFBiz itself in a Jackrabbit > repository. Please don't just punt on me and say "oh, well source code > is different". That's an argument by dismissal and glosses over > real-world situations where you might have a pilot group editing a set > of process documentation based on the core corporate standards, folding > in changes from "HEAD" as well as developing their own changes in > conjunction. I've just personally found that the distributed revision > control function is fundamental to managing the kinds of real content > that ends up on websites. Maybe you haven't. > > Scott Gray wrote: >> This isn't about casting stones or attempting to belittle webslinger, which >> I have no doubt is a fantastic piece of work and meets its stated goals >> brilliantly. This is about debating why it should be included in OFBiz as a >> tightly integrated CMS and how well webslinger's goals match up with OFBiz's >> content requirements (whatever they are, I don't pretend to know). >> Webslinger was included in the framework with little to no discussion and >> I'm trying to take the opportunity to have that discussion now. >> >> I'm not trying to add FUD to the possibility of webslinger taking a more >> active role in OFBiz, I'm just trying to understand what is being proposed >> and what the project stands to gain or lose by accepting that proposal. >> >> Version control with git and the ability to edit content with vi is great >> but what are we giving up in exchange for that? Surely there must be >> something lacking in a file system approach if the extremely vast majority >> of CMS vendors have shunned it in favor of a database (or database + file >> system) approach? I just cannot accept that all of these vendors simply >> said "durp durp RDMBS! durp durp". What about non-hierarchical node >> linking? Content meta-data? Transaction management? Referential integrity? >> Node types? >> > -- > Ean Schuessler, CTO > [email protected] > 214-720-0700 x 315 > Brainfood, Inc. > http://www.brainfood.com >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
