Begin forwarded message:
From: Daniel Ockeloen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: March 30, 2005 10:54:40 AM CEST
To: "Discussion list for designers (front-end)" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Users] Contributions module and CMS Container
Reply-To: "Discussion list for designers (front-end)" <[email protected]>
On Mar 30, 2005, at 7:58 AM, Nico Klasens wrote:
Daniel Ockeloen wrote:
I like the idea, We need more 'products' on layer 2 that make MMBase into 1 or more ready CMS systems with>
different options for different tasks. But i am also sure that we need more than just one of these frameworks since
none will match the all the types of users or areas of use. For example some want to build it around a mvc system
based on struts others on tags etc etc. I would like to see a name change and also maybe a type change.
Since we will get multiple of these (i hope) CMS container sounds to general in the way that it sounds like it should only be 1. Also maybe>
it would be better to define a name for these 'prefabs' or 'application frameworks'.
I with a few others plan to also create one based on our work for communities, it might be called mmpublish framework and will be aimed at DIY tools for communities. I see a future for atleast 5 to 10 of these frameworks all matching a different user group or a techical prefered way of working."CMS container" sounds very hollow and that is the intention of the proposal. With the CMS container we introduce some object types which a lot of mmbase CMSes have, but they are called different. When these object types are widely accepted then it will be much easier to share things.
It would be nice if some parts from these products would be able to be used in all of them, So personally i like the idea o a prefab where all the parts (say mmbob) work on their own but can also be part of 1 or more of these frameworks if installed
After reading your email I am really confused what type our proposal is. The only thing I still know is that our proposal is about CMS functionality. MMBase itself is imo not a cms, but can be used for one. Many mmbase implementations are not a cms. They use mmbase to store their information, but they don't have a content repository.
That is my point, your 'extention' moves mmbase from a cms building blocks to a 'full blown cms'. I think that is a great idea but also feel that we should/must expect more of these to develope so we should leave room for them both in the way we distribute/install them and in naming thats why i request a name change simply to not give a view that we only allow/expect one. Example several people called the MMBob forums the 'MMBase Forums' i make a point of it to not call it 'the mmbase forums' since it blocks possible other forums created in MMBase that people might want to make atleast in the minds of people.
I would hate to be 'forced' to call the second 'CMS Container' system to be made to be called 'CMS Container2' or 'Yet another CMS Container'. Proper naming creates less problems in the future.
Hope this makes more sense,
Daniel.
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.mmbase.org/mailman/listinfo/users
_______________________________________________ Developers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.mmbase.org/mailman/listinfo/developers
