I know there are a good amount of open apps, what Im wondering though is where is our community "cms" that everyone loves/hates. Seriously, php has its drupal,python has zope, .net has dotnetnuke, etc. Is anyone talking about something like this? A nice pluggable api (components), all the nifty core modules, news,blog,articles,gallery? Anything happening in this space? Im considering starting one up but dont want to duplicate effort. Just wondering Sam
I love the modular archetecture of Plone. You can start with a basic container offering the basics of content management -- document management, info architecture, authentication and ACLs. Then you can extend it with "Products" that provide other functionailty. On 7/24/05, Sam Mayes <codeslave-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> > I know there are a good amount of open apps, what Im wondering though > is where is our community "cms" that everyone loves/hates. Seriously, > php has its drupal,python has zope, .net has dotnetnuke, etc. Is > anyone talking about something like this? A nice pluggable api > (components), all the nifty core modules, news,blog,articles,gallery? > Anything happening in this space? Im considering starting one up but > dont want to duplicate effort. Just wondering > > > Sam > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >_______________________________________________ Rails mailing list Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
On 7/24/05, Sam Mayes <codeslave-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> is where is our community "cms" that everyone loves/hates. Seriously, > php has its drupal,python has zope, .net has dotnetnuke, etc. IsThe idea has been proposed more than once. My 2 cents as to why it hasn''t really taken off is that Rails makes it so (relatively) easy to build completely customized sites/applications that there isn''t much need for a one-size-fits-all type of CMS application. With the other systems you mention, the main benefit is that you can have a lot of basic functionality up and running pretty quickly as opposed to spending months putting together the basic utility framework of the site -- if you want to have something other than a "cookie cutter" site, you still need to put a lot of effort into customization. With Rails, you can have the basic functionality running very quickly without bringing along a lot of "extras" in the code that you may not want or need. Does anyone really "feel the pain" when putting together a custom Rails site to the extent that they would be interested in a prebuilt, generic CMS? What _would_ be more likely to take off would be a number of highly specialized applications that would require very little customization for their intended use. Typo (http://typo.leetsoft.com) already does this for the weblog area, and Hieraki (http://www.hieraki.org) fills the niche for online publishing of collaborative documentation. Other areas that could use this sort of application might include online magazine web sites, asset management, web-mail, etc. -- Regards, John Wilger ----------- Alice came to a fork in the road. "Which road do I take?" she asked. "Where do you want to go?" responded the Cheshire cat. "I don''t know," Alice answered. "Then," said the cat, "it doesn''t matter." - Lewis Carrol, Alice in Wonderland
http://www.RailFrog.com Open source, Rails, CMS On Jul 24, 2005, at 10:27 PM, John Wilger wrote:> On 7/24/05, Sam Mayes <codeslave-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: > >> is where is our community "cms" that everyone loves/hates. Seriously, >> php has its drupal,python has zope, .net has dotnetnuke, etc. Is >> > > The idea has been proposed more than once. My 2 cents as to why it > hasn''t really taken off is that Rails makes it so (relatively) easy to > build completely customized sites/applications that there isn''t much > need for a one-size-fits-all type of CMS application. With the other > systems you mention, the main benefit is that you can have a lot of > basic functionality up and running pretty quickly as opposed to > spending months putting together the basic utility framework of the > site -- if you want to have something other than a "cookie cutter" > site, you still need to put a lot of effort into customization. With > Rails, you can have the basic functionality running very quickly > without bringing along a lot of "extras" in the code that you may not > want or need. > > Does anyone really "feel the pain" when putting together a custom > Rails site to the extent that they would be interested in a prebuilt, > generic CMS? > > What _would_ be more likely to take off would be a number of highly > specialized applications that would require very little customization > for their intended use. Typo (http://typo.leetsoft.com) already does > this for the weblog area, and Hieraki (http://www.hieraki.org) fills > the niche for online publishing of collaborative documentation. Other > areas that could use this sort of application might include online > magazine web sites, asset management, web-mail, etc. > > -- > Regards, > John Wilger > > ----------- > Alice came to a fork in the road. "Which road do I take?" she asked. > "Where do you want to go?" responded the Cheshire cat. > "I don''t know," Alice answered. > "Then," said the cat, "it doesn''t matter." > - Lewis Carrol, Alice in Wonderland > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails > >Matt Pelletier pelletierm-A1PILTyJ15gXhy9q4Lf3Ug@public.gmane.org
I think John is right in the idea that with Rails there doesn''t really need to be a CMS built as it is very easy to add in functionality to an existing rails site. Just plonk something in the components directory. I just put together a basic CMS in Rails in a matter of 2 days and this was my first time using Rails. I think specialised software is a better aim. Using Rails there is already pretty much a basic standard to coding, so it would be easy enough to have a collaboration of software.> >The idea has been proposed more than once. My 2 cents as to why it >hasn''t really taken off is that Rails makes it so (relatively) easy to >build completely customized sites/applications that there isn''t much >need for a one-size-fits-all type of CMS application. With the other >systems you mention, the main benefit is that you can have a lot of >basic functionality up and running pretty quickly as opposed to >spending months putting together the basic utility framework of the >site -- if you want to have something other than a "cookie cutter" >site, you still need to put a lot of effort into customization. With >Rails, you can have the basic functionality running very quickly >without bringing along a lot of "extras" in the code that you may not >want or need. > >Does anyone really "feel the pain" when putting together a custom >Rails site to the extent that they would be interested in a prebuilt, >generic CMS? > >What _would_ be more likely to take off would be a number of highly >specialized applications that would require very little customization >for their intended use. Typo (http://typo.leetsoft.com) already does >this for the weblog area, and Hieraki (http://www.hieraki.org) fills >the niche for online publishing of collaborative documentation. Other >areas that could use this sort of application might include online >magazine web sites, asset management, web-mail, etc. > > >
I agree with everything was just asking really the big thing would be to integrate the existsing "apps" into one solid usermodel for example so they could all live nicely together. Sam On 7/25/05, Dylan Egan <dylan.egan-sFbbPxZDHXw0n/F98K4Iww@public.gmane.org> wrote:> I think John is right in the idea that with Rails there doesn''t really > need to be a CMS built as it is very easy to add in functionality to an > existing rails site. Just plonk something in the components directory. I > just put together a basic CMS in Rails in a matter of 2 days and this > was my first time using Rails. > > I think specialised software is a better aim. Using Rails there is > already pretty much a basic standard to coding, so it would be easy > enough to have a collaboration of software. > > > > >The idea has been proposed more than once. My 2 cents as to why it > >hasn''t really taken off is that Rails makes it so (relatively) easy to > >build completely customized sites/applications that there isn''t much > >need for a one-size-fits-all type of CMS application. With the other > >systems you mention, the main benefit is that you can have a lot of > >basic functionality up and running pretty quickly as opposed to > >spending months putting together the basic utility framework of the > >site -- if you want to have something other than a "cookie cutter" > >site, you still need to put a lot of effort into customization. With > >Rails, you can have the basic functionality running very quickly > >without bringing along a lot of "extras" in the code that you may not > >want or need. > > > >Does anyone really "feel the pain" when putting together a custom > >Rails site to the extent that they would be interested in a prebuilt, > >generic CMS? > > > >What _would_ be more likely to take off would be a number of highly > >specialized applications that would require very little customization > >for their intended use. Typo (http://typo.leetsoft.com) already does > >this for the weblog area, and Hieraki (http://www.hieraki.org) fills > >the niche for online publishing of collaborative documentation. Other > >areas that could use this sort of application might include online > >magazine web sites, asset management, web-mail, etc. > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >
I also agree with this. However there is great opportunity to get this from 2 days to 2 hours by just creating some good generators for common tasks. There could be generators to create simple weblogs, database driven pages, wikis and so on. The perfect rails CMS would be a bundle of generators following a similar but flexible style. On 7/25/05, Dylan Egan <dylan.egan-sFbbPxZDHXw0n/F98K4Iww@public.gmane.org> wrote:> I think John is right in the idea that with Rails there doesn''t really > need to be a CMS built as it is very easy to add in functionality to an > existing rails site. Just plonk something in the components directory. I > just put together a basic CMS in Rails in a matter of 2 days and this > was my first time using Rails.-- Tobi http://www.snowdevil.ca - Snowboards that don''t suck http://typo.leetsoft.com - Open source weblog engine http://blog.leetsoft.com - Technical weblog
On 7/25/05, Tobias Luetke <tobias.luetke-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> I also agree with this. However there is great opportunity to get this > from 2 days to 2 hours by just creating some good generators for > common tasks. > > There could be generators to create simple weblogs, database driven > pages, wikis and so on. > > The perfect rails CMS would be a bundle of generators following a > similar but flexible style.I was wanting to wait until I had something to show, but I''ve written a little CMS system as a rails component. Perhaps CMS is the wrong word though, there is a very specific problem I''m trying to solve. In my current app at work, there are these pages that don''t "do" anything (TOS, privacy stuff, etc). Just empty controller actions and views. Commit a change to svn and redeploy to change. Yuck. So, I wrote a controller that maps a dynamic route to a section in the DB and displays a page. For instance, you may have a section /support. A request for /support/faq would bring that page up from the database. This component is super simple and assumes very little about your app. No authentication, so you''ll have to dynamically add the same hooks that your app uses to protect the admin section. Anyways, the code is at http://collaboa.techno-weenie.net/repository/browse/supasite/ (look in the components dir, there''s nothing but views in app/). I''m using a little patch that hasn''t been accepted just yet, and my acts_as_versioned ext also. patches: http://dev.rubyonrails.org/ticket/1821 http://dev.rubyonrails.org/ticket/1758 This should work without the patches if you take out the sweepers and the acts_as_versioned line from the Page model. There''s one problem i see with generators... Let''s say I write a weblog generator but encounter some major flaw in it. Now, I have to go through all my apps that use it and update them. It seems like generators are best for smaller, temporary pieces of code (scaffolding being a great use for this). -- rick http://techno-weenie.net
what about using components instead? A bundle of tons of components. thats all drupal is really (oversimplifying of course). but all tied to say a standard usermodel etc a "core" Sam On 7/25/05, Rick Olson <technoweenie-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> On 7/25/05, Tobias Luetke <tobias.luetke-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > I also agree with this. However there is great opportunity to get this > > from 2 days to 2 hours by just creating some good generators for > > common tasks. > > > > There could be generators to create simple weblogs, database driven > > pages, wikis and so on. > > > > The perfect rails CMS would be a bundle of generators following a > > similar but flexible style. > > I was wanting to wait until I had something to show, but I''ve written > a little CMS system as a rails component. Perhaps CMS is the wrong > word though, there is a very specific problem I''m trying to solve. > > In my current app at work, there are these pages that don''t "do" > anything (TOS, privacy stuff, etc). Just empty controller actions and > views. Commit a change to svn and redeploy to change. Yuck. So, I > wrote a controller that maps a dynamic route to a section in the DB > and displays a page. For instance, you may have a section /support. > A request for /support/faq would bring that page up from the database. > > This component is super simple and assumes very little about your app. > No authentication, so you''ll have to dynamically add the same hooks > that your app uses to protect the admin section. > > Anyways, the code is at > http://collaboa.techno-weenie.net/repository/browse/supasite/ (look in > the components dir, there''s nothing but views in app/). I''m using a > little patch that hasn''t been accepted just yet, and my > acts_as_versioned ext also. > > patches: > http://dev.rubyonrails.org/ticket/1821 > http://dev.rubyonrails.org/ticket/1758 > > This should work without the patches if you take out the sweepers and > the acts_as_versioned line from the Page model. > > There''s one problem i see with generators... Let''s say I write a > weblog generator but encounter some major flaw in it. Now, I have to > go through all my apps that use it and update them. It seems like > generators are best for smaller, temporary pieces of code (scaffolding > being a great use for this). > > -- > rick > http://techno-weenie.net > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >
I think having a set of really well integrated components based on a core sounds great. I''m in the process doing a next revision on a multilingual site, where one of the requirements is CMS functionality. I want to make it all Rails based. Having these components available (central user model, admin editable pages, powerful navigation/menu controller [does anyone have one I can use??], news controller, etc), means I don''t have to write everything from scratch, and can concentrate on the real underlying functionality. I know many of these things can be written in a couple days (or longer for some people). But I hate duplicating work. My 2 cents... Brett On Jul 26, 2005, at 7:10 AM, Sam Mayes wrote:> what about using components instead? A bundle of tons of components. > thats all drupal is really (oversimplifying of course). but all tied > to say a standard usermodel etc a "core" > > Sam > > On 7/25/05, Rick Olson <technoweenie-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: > >> On 7/25/05, Tobias Luetke <tobias.luetke-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: >> >>> I also agree with this. However there is great opportunity to get >>> this >>> from 2 days to 2 hours by just creating some good generators for >>> common tasks. >>> >>> There could be generators to create simple weblogs, database driven >>> pages, wikis and so on. >>> >>> The perfect rails CMS would be a bundle of generators following a >>> similar but flexible style. >>> >> >> I was wanting to wait until I had something to show, but I''ve written >> a little CMS system as a rails component. Perhaps CMS is the wrong >> word though, there is a very specific problem I''m trying to solve. >> >> In my current app at work, there are these pages that don''t "do" >> anything (TOS, privacy stuff, etc). Just empty controller actions >> and >> views. Commit a change to svn and redeploy to change. Yuck. So, I >> wrote a controller that maps a dynamic route to a section in the DB >> and displays a page. For instance, you may have a section /support. >> A request for /support/faq would bring that page up from the >> database. >> >> This component is super simple and assumes very little about your >> app. >> No authentication, so you''ll have to dynamically add the same hooks >> that your app uses to protect the admin section. >> >> Anyways, the code is at >> http://collaboa.techno-weenie.net/repository/browse/supasite/ >> (look in >> the components dir, there''s nothing but views in app/). I''m using a >> little patch that hasn''t been accepted just yet, and my >> acts_as_versioned ext also. >> >> patches: >> http://dev.rubyonrails.org/ticket/1821 >> http://dev.rubyonrails.org/ticket/1758 >> >> This should work without the patches if you take out the sweepers and >> the acts_as_versioned line from the Page model. >> >> There''s one problem i see with generators... Let''s say I write a >> weblog generator but encounter some major flaw in it. Now, I have to >> go through all my apps that use it and update them. It seems like >> generators are best for smaller, temporary pieces of code >> (scaffolding >> being a great use for this). >> >> -- >> rick >> http://techno-weenie.net >> _______________________________________________ >> Rails mailing list >> Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org >> http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >
Yea this is exactly what i was talking about . Something where you can plug the pieces in. and extend if needed. Anyone interested in looking at this further and maybe starting something up? Sam On 7/26/05, Brett Walker <walkerbl-O5WfVfzUwx8@public.gmane.org> wrote:> I think having a set of really well integrated components based on a > core sounds great. I''m in the process doing a next revision on a > multilingual site, where one of the requirements is CMS > functionality. I want to make it all Rails based. Having these > components available (central user model, admin editable pages, > powerful navigation/menu controller [does anyone have one I can > use??], news controller, etc), means I don''t have to write everything > from scratch, and can concentrate on the real underlying > functionality. I know many of these things can be written in a > couple days (or longer for some people). But I hate duplicating work. > > My 2 cents... > > Brett > > On Jul 26, 2005, at 7:10 AM, Sam Mayes wrote: > > > what about using components instead? A bundle of tons of components. > > thats all drupal is really (oversimplifying of course). but all tied > > to say a standard usermodel etc a "core" > > > > Sam > > > > On 7/25/05, Rick Olson <technoweenie-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > > >> On 7/25/05, Tobias Luetke <tobias.luetke-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: > >> > >>> I also agree with this. However there is great opportunity to get > >>> this > >>> from 2 days to 2 hours by just creating some good generators for > >>> common tasks. > >>> > >>> There could be generators to create simple weblogs, database driven > >>> pages, wikis and so on. > >>> > >>> The perfect rails CMS would be a bundle of generators following a > >>> similar but flexible style. > >>> > >> > >> I was wanting to wait until I had something to show, but I''ve written > >> a little CMS system as a rails component. Perhaps CMS is the wrong > >> word though, there is a very specific problem I''m trying to solve. > >> > >> In my current app at work, there are these pages that don''t "do" > >> anything (TOS, privacy stuff, etc). Just empty controller actions > >> and > >> views. Commit a change to svn and redeploy to change. Yuck. So, I > >> wrote a controller that maps a dynamic route to a section in the DB > >> and displays a page. For instance, you may have a section /support. > >> A request for /support/faq would bring that page up from the > >> database. > >> > >> This component is super simple and assumes very little about your > >> app. > >> No authentication, so you''ll have to dynamically add the same hooks > >> that your app uses to protect the admin section. > >> > >> Anyways, the code is at > >> http://collaboa.techno-weenie.net/repository/browse/supasite/ > >> (look in > >> the components dir, there''s nothing but views in app/). I''m using a > >> little patch that hasn''t been accepted just yet, and my > >> acts_as_versioned ext also. > >> > >> patches: > >> http://dev.rubyonrails.org/ticket/1821 > >> http://dev.rubyonrails.org/ticket/1758 > >> > >> This should work without the patches if you take out the sweepers and > >> the acts_as_versioned line from the Page model. > >> > >> There''s one problem i see with generators... Let''s say I write a > >> weblog generator but encounter some major flaw in it. Now, I have to > >> go through all my apps that use it and update them. It seems like > >> generators are best for smaller, temporary pieces of code > >> (scaffolding > >> being a great use for this). > >> > >> -- > >> rick > >> http://techno-weenie.net > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Rails mailing list > >> Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > >> http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails > >> > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > Rails mailing list > > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails > > > > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >
Sorry hit return too fast. railfrog looks interesting though cant get access as the basecamp admin is AWOL so I dont know their specifics. What Would be best i think is take some of the best apps out now and make them components that can be "plugged" in. Although it would be nice to have a core that when you add a component it auto recognizes the pieces ala drupal plone etc. Sam On 7/27/05, Sam Mayes <codeslave-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> Yea this is exactly what i was talking about . Something where you can > plug the pieces in. and extend if needed. > > Anyone interested in looking at this further and maybe starting something up? > > Sam > > On 7/26/05, Brett Walker <walkerbl-O5WfVfzUwx8@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > I think having a set of really well integrated components based on a > > core sounds great. I''m in the process doing a next revision on a > > multilingual site, where one of the requirements is CMS > > functionality. I want to make it all Rails based. Having these > > components available (central user model, admin editable pages, > > powerful navigation/menu controller [does anyone have one I can > > use??], news controller, etc), means I don''t have to write everything > > from scratch, and can concentrate on the real underlying > > functionality. I know many of these things can be written in a > > couple days (or longer for some people). But I hate duplicating work. > > > > My 2 cents... > > > > Brett > > > > On Jul 26, 2005, at 7:10 AM, Sam Mayes wrote: > > > > > what about using components instead? A bundle of tons of components. > > > thats all drupal is really (oversimplifying of course). but all tied > > > to say a standard usermodel etc a "core" > > > > > > Sam > > > > > > On 7/25/05, Rick Olson <technoweenie-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > > > > >> On 7/25/05, Tobias Luetke <tobias.luetke-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > >> > > >>> I also agree with this. However there is great opportunity to get > > >>> this > > >>> from 2 days to 2 hours by just creating some good generators for > > >>> common tasks. > > >>> > > >>> There could be generators to create simple weblogs, database driven > > >>> pages, wikis and so on. > > >>> > > >>> The perfect rails CMS would be a bundle of generators following a > > >>> similar but flexible style. > > >>> > > >> > > >> I was wanting to wait until I had something to show, but I''ve written > > >> a little CMS system as a rails component. Perhaps CMS is the wrong > > >> word though, there is a very specific problem I''m trying to solve. > > >> > > >> In my current app at work, there are these pages that don''t "do" > > >> anything (TOS, privacy stuff, etc). Just empty controller actions > > >> and > > >> views. Commit a change to svn and redeploy to change. Yuck. So, I > > >> wrote a controller that maps a dynamic route to a section in the DB > > >> and displays a page. For instance, you may have a section /support. > > >> A request for /support/faq would bring that page up from the > > >> database. > > >> > > >> This component is super simple and assumes very little about your > > >> app. > > >> No authentication, so you''ll have to dynamically add the same hooks > > >> that your app uses to protect the admin section. > > >> > > >> Anyways, the code is at > > >> http://collaboa.techno-weenie.net/repository/browse/supasite/ > > >> (look in > > >> the components dir, there''s nothing but views in app/). I''m using a > > >> little patch that hasn''t been accepted just yet, and my > > >> acts_as_versioned ext also. > > >> > > >> patches: > > >> http://dev.rubyonrails.org/ticket/1821 > > >> http://dev.rubyonrails.org/ticket/1758 > > >> > > >> This should work without the patches if you take out the sweepers and > > >> the acts_as_versioned line from the Page model. > > >> > > >> There''s one problem i see with generators... Let''s say I write a > > >> weblog generator but encounter some major flaw in it. Now, I have to > > >> go through all my apps that use it and update them. It seems like > > >> generators are best for smaller, temporary pieces of code > > >> (scaffolding > > >> being a great use for this). > > >> > > >> -- > > >> rick > > >> http://techno-weenie.net > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> Rails mailing list > > >> Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > > >> http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails > > >> > > >> > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Rails mailing list > > > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > > > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Rails mailing list > > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails > > >