I don't think the point is to make Radiant like Drupal. I think Drupal is not a good example, a better example is a pure content management framework like Pods CMS (podscms.org -- ignore the fact that it's merely a WP plugin). In short, building a good way to deal with content types other than pages, and this is an issue that I've had to deal with in a few client projects where I wanted to use Radiant.
mgutz, to answer the question I think you're trying to ask: No, there isn't an easy way to build for different content types. Radiant is *at its heart* a page management system. To deal with other content types you will ultimately have to build an extension for whatever you need. On Jun 26, 2010, at 2:51 PM, Joel Oliveira wrote: > My personal, biased and completely unabashed opinion - if Radiant's not like > Drupal, then everyone on the Radiant core team is definitely doing something > right. I'd rather switch careers than make another go with Drupal. > > The way I look at it - Radiant gets out of my way and let's me get things > done. That's all I need. > > Just my opinion. > > On Jun 26, 2010, at 2:24 PM, mgutz <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I'm trying to grasp what Radiant CMS is. I went through the demo. My >> initial impression is that Radiant a page management system more >> concerned with structure than content. In contrast, a CMS like Drupal >> is focused on content. That is the basic unit of management is content >> be it an artricle, product, blog entry, video clip, a recipe ... >> >> Radiant is focused on the developer who thinks in pages instead of the >> end user who thinks in types of content. The markup supports this. >> Most end users would be confused with liquid templates. In general, >> the Ruby CMS I researched do the same thing with their own twist. I >> wonder if any Ruby CMS will ever reach the status of Drupal because of >> the difference in approach. That is not to say Drupal is the ultimate >> CMS. >> >> There are times when I want to create a page in Drupal and life would >> be easier if Drupal behaved like Radiant. Is the lesson learned to not >> put everything in one admin and mix concerns? How about a separate >> admin area for end users where, for example, a blog entry is nothing >> more than one or more paragraphs. The existing admin would be used by >> developers and designers to create layouts and page prototypes which >> can be selected by end users. >> >> Does this make sense at all?
