My presentation (~35 min) is now available on Google Video. Yay!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=873065414896280423&hl=en
Again, the slides are here:
http://seancribbs.com/customizing-radiantcms
Sean
From the presentation:
0.7 - Intaglio (Blogging)
Comments, tagging
Mars Edit support
Convert from WordPress, Typo, Mephisto
Robust import/export
Oh? Where can I learn more? Is there a planned future release to
address what’s being discussed in the “Radiant replace Pages with
Abstract Content Model” thread?
Sorry, remove ‘cms’ from the end of that last URL.
That list is just what I have collected from Radiant’s core-team
Basecamp.
Re: Abstract Content Model - Doubtful. I understand the conceptual
reasons behind the abstraction of content; however, I’m with John on
this one. There seems to be very little benefit for the amount of
indirection and complication that would be introduced. If we want
Radiant to maintain simplicity and clarity, I think we need to stay
away from becoming a content-management “framework” like ezPublish,
Plone, Xaraya, and many others. It’s really just overkill for most
scenarios.
When we evaluated ezPublish at KCKCC we started calling it
“hardPublish” – there were too many barriers between us and the
content. And in the end, we wanted control of all of the output.
Radiant provided that for us.
I guess what I’m saying is, I’m glad Radiant embraces constraints.
That makes it not fit in all scenarios, but if you need something
else, you should use it. Be pragmatic!
Sean
Hi Sean:
Sean C. wrote:
That list is just what I have collected from Radiant’s core-team Basecamp.
There is a Basecamp and a Trac? Or am I missing something?
Re: Abstract Content Model - Doubtful. I understand the conceptual
reasons behind the abstraction of content; however, I’m with John on
this one. There seems to be very little benefit for the amount of
indirection and complication that would be introduced.
I am not quite sure what complications you are referring to? Derived
models behave just like first order ActiveRecord models. At least that
is the goal. All that changes is that you have the freedom of using
the added layer of abstraction that provides you with a unified design
model for content objects.
If we want
Radiant to maintain simplicity and clarity, I think we need to stay
away from becoming a content-management “framework” like ezPublish,
Plone, Xaraya, and many others. It’s really just overkill for most
scenarios.
If I understand the motivation for Radiant correctly, then its goal is
to be content developer-centric. So, what does the content developer
care about how his/her data is stored? Simplicity in that domain is
purely a user interface design issue that requires the underlying data
model to accommodate for it. This can be done with an object-oriented
model or a flat file model. Why reject proven software design and data
modeling methodologies if they add flexibility without affecting
functionality?
I have no intentions to interfere with Radiant’s UI design as long as
it remains useful and intuitive. But I think adding a more flexible
object model is beneficial in the long run and it does not need to
affect the UI at all.
Cheers,
Oliver
I just want to voice my support: Keep it simple.