[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [E-devel] website maintainers needed

On Tuesday, 12 September 2006, at 01:08:22 (+0300),
Eugen Minciu wrote:

> Ruby on Rails is a web application development framework. For more
> info see http://www.rubyonrails.com. It's like the advanced brother
> of PHP. The really, really advanced brother of PHP. It's not a
> CMS. It should allow you to build anything you can think of.

In other words, Ruby on Rails isn't even a CMS.  It's a way to build

Nowhere near what we need to be discussing right now, IMHO.

And stop comparing PHP to RoR.  Your "advanced brother" analogy is
fallacious and misleading.

> You could continue to use XSM. But XSM is not a framework and adding
> functionality to the site will get harder and harder.

As I'm guessing you know very, very little about how XSM is built,
what the code looks like, and what the plans for it are, you are in no
position to make this claim.  So please don't.

> You could use another framework or, gasp, PHP or Perl. It's just
> that Ruby on Rails is familiar to some people.

So are PHP and Perl.  Familiar to more people, in fact, probably by
several orders of magnitude.

> It doesn't really matter how many there are,

Then you can't use that as a point against XSM either.

> 1) A website is not composed just of documentation. It's not just
> based on text. You can use HTML for that but if you want to
> integrate the desktop and the website, if you want to integrate the
> code in CVS and the website, if you want to integrate bug reports on
> the website and the mailing list, you can't use HTML.

Of course you can.  FAQ's, bug reports, and web sites in general have
been working in HTML for years and years.  The question is how the
HTML comes into existence.

> I could go on, but I'll stop here. I may be biased I may be
> wrong. Personally, I don't think that just the people who are
> maintaining the site should decide this. But they should all agree
> with the final solution.

You are biased.  Everyone is. :-)  I just think you need to be more
careful about your claims and upon what you base them.

On Tuesday, 12 September 2006, at 08:29:12 (+0900),
Carsten Haitzler wrote:

> at last! someone is mentioning something that we need to
> address. xsm permissions model. maybe the page just needs to be
> split up into 3 pages?

One page that references all the themes, then a page per theme for
file attachments and such.  Seems fairly obvious to me....

> but xsm's permissions model is a little painful - if you want to
> give a new "site maintainer" access - you have to go to every page,
> 1 by 1, and add them in. it's unmanageable that way (last time i did
> it for onefang it took me ages).

Yes, that certainly needs to be addressed.  And as I understand from
Andrew, it is being addressed.

> also remember - we likely want to be more permissive than restrictive.

But it's really the same fundamental problem:  setting permissions
flags in as flexible a manner as possible.

On Tuesday, 12 September 2006, at 03:30:56 (+0300),
Eugen Minciu wrote:

> Yes but everyone is implementing the same things over and over
> again. Rails has plugins which can load functionality and generators
> which create code for you and this allows you to reuse other
> people's code in your application.

Ruby is implementing the same things that every other web application
framework has implemented.  RoR is no different than any other
framework in that regard.


Michael Jennings (a.k.a. KainX)  http://www.kainx.org/  <mej@kainx.org>
n + 1, Inc., http://www.nplus1.net/       Author, Eterm (www.eterm.org)
 "You are waiting on a beach.  This is where the East meets West.
  And as another sun sets on your anger, the darkness laughs as the
  wound destroys, and it turns your prayers to noise.  Will you
  forgive?  Will you forget?  Will you live what you know?  He left
  his rights; will you leave yours?  You don't understand it.
  Let it go."                                              -- Newsboys