On 30 Jun 2010, at 02:39, john muhl wrote: > On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 7:51 PM, Jim Gay <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 2:24 PM, Haselwanter Edmund >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On 29.06.2010, at 19:47, Jim Gay wrote: >>> >>>> I'm glad you brought this up for discussion. >>> >>> It just felt right after following the github discussion :-) >>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 11:59 AM, Edmund Haselwanter >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> A question for clarification: >>> >>> [ .. snippet .. ] >>> >>>>> wouldn't it be wise to concentrate on just one (nifty) asset >>>>> extension? >>>>> I see an asset extension as a vital part of a CMS (=> see, it says >>>>> content ;-) >>>> >>>> Yes. >>>> Check out the prototype http://github.com/radiant/radiant-prototype >>>> >>>> And there are tickets like >>>> http://github.com/radiant/radiant/issues#issue/28 (sns) and >>> >>> <quote jlong> >>> >>> jlong February 18, 2010 | link >>> There's a little more work to do on this in the prototype, mainly the upload >>> interface. I believe Chris Parish has had ambitions for simplifying his >>> styles 'n >>> scripts extension to serve this purpose. If it is going to make it into 0.9 >>> it >>> should be implemented as an extension that ships with the core. >>> >>> </quote jlong> >>> >>> That's exactly how I see it too :-) >> >> SNS needs some more thought (which I happen to be doing >> http://www.saturnflyer.com/blog/jim/2010/06/29/ruby-metaprogramming-is-awesome/ >> ) but I see that as a necessity for managing a site (along with >> image/file management of course). > > having your css and js in the admin interface is a necessity? i tried > to love sns but never could find any benefit to not having the files > on disk.
My users sometimes edit css, and I often tweak it in small ways. SNS means I don't have to redeploy. But mostly I keep it in the filesystem, as you say. >> <snip> >> Yes, but partly because paperclipped had so much more done. Keith did >> a great job creating it and it's feature set blows page_attachments >> out of the water, but as I've heard John Muhl point out, some users >> find the interface (like the assets bucket) confusing and the >> simplicity of a list on a page (a la page_attachments) is very easy to >> understand. > > it's true. i've tried paperclipped on three occasions and all three > times it ended up being pulled due to the "commoners" not really > getting the interface. with p_a they get it almost immediately; it's > like attachments in email and everybody seems to understand that. I find they get used to the bucket, but it's not ideal at all. I would like to see a much simpler interface that also offers snippets and anything else another extension cares to add. I have to update paperclipped first, but then I mean to try that in a separate extension. will
