On Feb 26, 2009, at 10:22 PM, Mark Glossop wrote:

On 26/02/09 05:58, somebody called Mark Glossop (li...@cueballcentral.com )
wrote this:

Hi all - first time poster here [didn't want to hijack the thread about Dreamhost, so started a new one...I have a very specific question, related to
the OP about Dreamhost.]

It's good to be hearing this about Dreamhost now, especially when I'm looking to deploy this weekend. Only started with Radiant about a week ago. Doing my dev work on local box, and have been a little concerned about the sorcery that
it may take to get everything moved over onto Dreamhost's "special"
environment. I'm deliberately doing all the dev locally since that's how I'm
used to doing Rails dev work; no developtestduction here! :-)

Anyhow - this whole issue brought something back to me...something that initially made me steer away from Radiant as a CMS when I was looking around at various CMS options. I liked Radiant, but didn't like the way it was packaged up. Evidently that's not enough of a reason for me to _not_ use it,
but the question remains:

Why is Radiant delivered as a gem with "all the dependencies included"? Or, put another way, why is it not delivered as a Ruby gem with external gem dependencies, that generates a "standard" Rails app structure when invoked?

Some clarification (please note, all of the following are IHMO):
* Some much larger apps [Redmine comes to mind] don't use this approach and
are actually simpler to deploy than Radiant. Really.

How so?

* Yes, I know "standard" isn't exactly well-defined AFA Rails is concerned.
* "gem unpack" is not a valid answer/workaround.

Why not?
You can also "rake radiant:freeze:gems" or "rake radiant:freeze:edge"
Or you could clone the repository and modify it just like any other app.

* The closest rationale I have found for this question is in the Radiant FAQ - "Gems: Versions of any required libraries are built-in. So that means that you don't need to have the rails gem installed: the radiant gem comes bundled with
a particular version."


* It also makes it harder to consider contributing code to Radiant.

How so?

Apart from my own curiosity, my business partners will want to know why I have chosen Radiant for the CMS I am working on. This info helps me with them.

If the full reasoning behind this design decision is already online somewhere, please just point me there, as my Google-fu has obviously not been working.



Sorry to nag, but - anyone? Bueller?

In case this was somehow regarded as trollbait, I'm asking this as a
legitimate query...it really is quite important for me to know, and time is
a factor for me ATM.

To summarise the above verbiage:

Why is Radiant delivered with all dependencies included?

Why not?
Including the dependencies means the instructions for getting started for new users will be much simpler.

You listed several comments that suggest it is harder to deploy/ contribute/develop with Radiant, but provided no information about why that is your opinion.
How would you want Radiant to be structured and why?


TIA for any and all responses. If you'd prefer to respond off-list, please
feel free.

Mark Glossop - lists <AT> cueballcentral <DOT> com

Radiant mailing list
Post:   Radiant@radiantcms.org
Search: http://radiantcms.org/mailing-list/search/
Site:   http://lists.radiantcms.org/mailman/listinfo/radiant

Radiant mailing list
Post:   Radiant@radiantcms.org
Search: http://radiantcms.org/mailing-list/search/
Site:   http://lists.radiantcms.org/mailman/listinfo/radiant

Reply via email to