My presentation (~35 min) is now available on Google Video. Yay! http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8730654148... Again, the slides are here: http://seancribbs.com/customizing-radiantcms Sean
on 2007-03-30 18:12
on 2007-03-30 18:13
Sorry, remove 'cms' from the end of that last URL.
on 2007-03-30 19:40
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?
on 2007-03-30 21:36
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
on 2007-03-30 22:39
I just want to voice my support: Keep it simple.
on 2007-03-31 00:04
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