Comments on: Thinking of Joomla as a framework, not a CMS http://www.picnet.net/blog/2006/08/19/thinking-of-joomla-as-a-framework-not-a-cms/ All the PICnet news that's fit to print. Wed, 19 Nov 2008 04:16:14 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.3 by: Casey Lee http://www.picnet.net/blog/2006/08/19/thinking-of-joomla-as-a-framework-not-a-cms/#comment-17 Sun, 27 Aug 2006 01:15:25 +0000 http://www.picnet.net/blog/2006/08/19/thinking-of-joomla-as-a-framework-not-a-cms/#comment-17 Excellent post! Bravo, Ryan. Excellent post!
Bravo, Ryan.

]]> by: Mark http://www.picnet.net/blog/2006/08/19/thinking-of-joomla-as-a-framework-not-a-cms/#comment-13 Tue, 22 Aug 2006 15:03:56 +0000 http://www.picnet.net/blog/2006/08/19/thinking-of-joomla-as-a-framework-not-a-cms/#comment-13 I agree. While I find your efforts valiant and certainly visionary, part of Joomla's appeal to newcomers is its ease of use and completeness. Improving the ACL would bring Joomla in line with other CMS systems. Let the foundation (to non-developers) be strong, so that you get broad adoption. Then let developers go wild and build on your framework. I've seen several clients, both NPO and biz complain about the limitations of ACL. While this could be an opportunity for developers, it feels a bit like a cheap shot to say, 'you need to spend more to get that functionality'. I'm having the same debates with the tikiwiki community about WYSIWYG. Most SAAS wikis out there offer wysiwyg as a default. Users don't care about the wonders of wiki markup, and don't want to deal with filtering html to correctly render. So if you are a wiki developer and you do not keep up with the Jones' on the wysiwyg area with some kind of built in parser, you get passed up for other offerings. I love Joomla, and want to 'get it' on this framework argument, so I hope you post in the forums about this vision so we can discuss/understand better. Enjoy SF! I agree. While I find your efforts valiant and certainly visionary, part of Joomla’s appeal to newcomers is its ease of use and completeness.
Improving the ACL would bring Joomla in line with other CMS systems.
Let the foundation (to non-developers) be strong, so that you get broad adoption. Then let developers go wild and build on your framework.

I’ve seen several clients, both NPO and biz complain about the limitations of ACL. While this could be an opportunity for developers, it feels a bit like a cheap shot to say, ‘you need to spend more to get that functionality’.

I’m having the same debates with the tikiwiki community about WYSIWYG. Most SAAS wikis out there offer wysiwyg as a default. Users don’t care about the wonders of wiki markup, and don’t want to deal with filtering html to correctly render. So if you are a wiki developer and you do not keep up with the Jones’ on the wysiwyg area with some kind of built in parser, you get passed up for other offerings.

I love Joomla, and want to ‘get it’ on this framework argument, so I hope you post in the forums about this vision so we can discuss/understand better.

Enjoy SF!

]]> by: Toby http://www.picnet.net/blog/2006/08/19/thinking-of-joomla-as-a-framework-not-a-cms/#comment-12 Tue, 22 Aug 2006 04:33:22 +0000 http://www.picnet.net/blog/2006/08/19/thinking-of-joomla-as-a-framework-not-a-cms/#comment-12 Hmm, too bad most people want a CMS. Don't get me wrong - I'm impressed with what I've seen of the 1.5 API and I appreciate the challenges of refactoring an existing system. The new media management facilities are great and it looks like templates are finally being implemented. I'm just worried about the 1.5 "hump" - potential users choosing other systems while developers, such as myself, migrate their code. tcp Hmm, too bad most people want a CMS. Don’t get me wrong - I’m impressed with what I’ve seen of the 1.5 API and I appreciate the challenges of refactoring an existing system. The new media management facilities are great and it looks like templates are finally being implemented. I’m just worried about the 1.5 “hump” - potential users choosing other systems while developers, such as myself, migrate their code.

tcp

]]>