Yeh, I haven't used Refinery yet, but I think there's still a hole in the CMS space for an app which grasps how to do the basics well but remain easy to extend. I'll check out Refinery at some stage (it's a pity they confuse documentation with videos). If anyone has used Refinery I'd be interested in hearing about how easy it is to extend - a good CMS should use a Rails friendly approach (engines) to allow you to plug new features into its framework.
In the interim BrowserCMS is very strong. No one wants to code a Drupal replacement in the Ruby world, but most coders would like to find one! > On Jan 20, 2:31 pm, kirillrdy <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, > > > Just want to ask people what Rails based CMS they use, > > > I've tried just about anything there is, and I dont feel very happy > > with any of them. > > > Out of all the ones I've tested top 2 are Radiant and BrowserCMS. > > > Radiant is simple, but sometimes even simples things are so hard to do > > in Radiant. Almost all extensions are old and broken, And worst of all > > it would be hard to teach a non teach client to use it. > > > BrowserCMS was meant to be much better, I like how easy it is to > > integrate browserCMS with any rails app. > > But interface is so hard to use, its slow, its fat ( some people say > > it swaps on 256 vps ) > > BrowsersCMS caching is crazy and of course lack of documentation, all > > official guides say "To be completed" > > I agree with most of the above (though I don't think performance is > that bad). > I was going to go with Radiant until BrowserCMS came along, and after > completing one project (http://tcaproject.org) and with another 3 on > the way I'm enjoying BrowserCMS. > Its main strengths are that it looks good for clients, provides a > WYSIWYG and in-place editing style (CKEditor is coming), and is well > integrated into Rails. I especially like how it handles custom > content > types, so you can easily generate content types that fit the > customers > business, and automatically get a CRUD interface for them to use. > There are some useability warts, and the lack of thumbnails in the > admin list of images bugs me, but it is moving forward faster than > Radiant, and there is an actual company behind it. > > Performance wise I run it with a few other low traffic sites on a > Linode > 384MB with REE and Passenger and its fine. I don't think it has been > very > optimised for performance yet, and most things are addressable by the > developer eg. X-Sendfile aupport. Its just Ruby and Rails - use the > custom module feature and/or monkey patch away! > > Cheers, > > Gary
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby or Rails Oceania" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rails-oceania?hl=en.
