Hello Daniel,
You can't make make a hard line between 2 groups of mmbase users (I am
not talking about users which work with application build on MMbase).
You can only divide users based on technical skill level. On one side
are users who work/change/rewrite taglib pages or add javascript, flash
or other parts. On the other end there are users who are working for
companies like Finalist. Most of the MMbase users are somewhere between
these ends.
The end with less technical skills is covered by MMbase, but there are
still some wishes from the point where I am standing. The proposal
grants some of my wishes. It is not an xor situation where we have to
take away something from the other side to fulfill my wishes. What makes
thier life easier applies for me too.
Didactor shows how some of my wishes could be granted. This is what is
in the proposal.
The proposal also address the issue with exisitng templating mechanisms
currently in use and how to support them all. I don't think all users
will going to use one templating mechanism Everyone will choose his
templating mechanism based on his technical skill level and what is
comfortable for him. MMbase only has to provide an infrastructure where
all technical skill levels can do their thing. It will actually be much
easier to meet customer requirements when you can choose between
templating mechanisms. A lot of projects at Finalist will probably use
the portlet templating mechanism, because that meets our customer wishes.
MMbase only has to realize that many new customers who select the
product are willing to accept higher costs for hosting. Java hosting is
much more expensive than php. There are many php cms implementations
which meet customer requirements when the customer doesn't want to pay
for java hosting. This means that MMbase belongs to the more expensive
applications and that customers in this segment demand more from their
application. This also applies for the templating mechanism in their
application.
Nico
Daniel Ockeloen wrote:
Hai,
Henk, Nico,
I won't copy all the comments since i think it will make it more
confusing to read. My main goal in trying to say there are 2 views
was to make the discussion more clear on why you propose what you
did. You seem to point out its more complex and its not the reason
why you will allow multiple
frameworks but with compatible components. Since it seems to make in
more confusing ill drop this way of explaining it.
Let me repeat myself i fully support the plan and think its a great
starting point, I agree with Nico that you want applications in java
but i personally like to bring them to the frontend using taglibs. Im
not sure yet where i start in the portal stuff but i fully agree that
we need one for people who want to work in that model.
I don't fully agree with Henk in that there are many people who for
example never used a ant compiler or changed a class file but who do
work/change/rewrite taglib pages or add javascript, flash or other
parts.
MMBase sofar was build from zero or reuse what you used before, this
also means that by design it exclused alot of people if you don't
have atleast
access to a programmer. But i can see more people being able to
change (on all levels) things in something like didactor. It might be
just settings that change what components are on/off and in what
'mode' or changing stylesheets. For others it might be changing a few
simple jsp's or adding some views (these small html parts) they don't
all need to have the same level of programming and i for one think
its our task to think about it.
Nico i tried to explain the 'why' i guess i failed, can you give me a
idea of how you think this will evolve over time ? Do you feel we
will merge to one
framework over time ?
Daniel.
_______________________________________________
Developers mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.mmbase.org/mailman/listinfo/developers
_______________________________________________
Developers mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.mmbase.org/mailman/listinfo/developers
