I've built a (relatively simple - 3 models and a controller on top of the built in stuff) site on top of Refinery and found it generally very easy to use. Documentation was a bit of the pain in the ass and the structure of it (gem version with refinery as an engine in that which you require) is annoying at best when you're looking for something specific (although, ack makes all that simple - but that's not the point) but on the whole doing stuff is simple. You can get away quite easily with just theming the existing stuff, writing your own front end controllers as you normally would and then using the generated admin backend (by default it generates a scaffoldy style admin section) as a starting point / reference to add everything else.
In other words, I liked it - more than any of the other rails cms' I've played with - but it still has a few annoying warts. On Jan 20, 5:57 pm, Nicholas Faiz <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
