Ken Pooley wrote:
>
> I think what makes these products interesting from my point of view is that
> I can turn all of the content over to people I wouldn't trust in my
> webserver....which as I understand it the extended permissions in
> MidGard2.0 will let me do more of...
Midgard 1.2.X has a decent level of access control. The 2.0 access
control
makes it a little (OK, a lot) more fine grained: read permissions (which
1.2 lacks), separate permissions for changing, locking and approving
articles, variable access control (set AC for 'creator' or 'self',
whoever
that may be for the specific object). The new ACL concept will make it
easy to add new types of ACLs.
> but also turn the responsibility for
> content approval and LIABILITY over to the editors who are used to making
> that call...I think there are ways to do it with midgard now but it is not
> at an idiot proof level...
Can you elaborate on what you mean with liability in this context (and
how
other tools solve it)?
Midgard has locking & approval functionality built-in, but the PHP
level coding has to use that functionality. You can approve an article
from the admin site, but the _list_ functions will fetch all
articles, approved or not. The site logic has to filter out non-approved
articles if you want only approved articles to show up.
> editors can read but that doesn't make them
> smart...I still go back to my fave from an interface usability stand point
> ( at least in the demos I have seen....) MediaSurface, their users and
> groups admin is pretty nice...
I'm not familiar with MediaSurface, but the admin site is just a Midgard
application. You can change it to look like MediaServer, or even build a
second admin site to offer this look & feel.
> the down side is that they want you to run a
> webserver, an application server and a DB server..
To be fair: Midgard requires just a little less, having the
appserver built into the webserver. You still need a database.
> oh and it should be
> Oracle, though they could go with what ever that microsoft big iron
> DB...and if that weren't enough the cost is not trivial...we figured
> $250,000 minimum by the time we bought the servers they wanted...
Ah, they're targeting the SOHO market segment. :/
> for someone who doesn't even get his own line item in the budget that is pretty
> tough change to scrounge from the couch........
*grin*
I've been surfing around in search of application servers, and noticed
that most in
the OSS realm target application developers, not site developers. AAMOF,
the only
decent OSS content management systems I've found are Midgard and Zope.
Am I missing something?
Bye,
Emile
--
This is The Midgard Project's mailing list. For more information,
please visit the project's web site at http://www.midgard-project.org
To unsubscribe the list, send an empty email message to address
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
