Re: [pgsql-advocacy] PostgreSQL.org Design Proposal - Mailing list pgsql-www
From | Mitch Pirtle |
---|---|
Subject | Re: [pgsql-advocacy] PostgreSQL.org Design Proposal |
Date | |
Msg-id | 330532b60410281026172bc0b6@mail.gmail.com Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: [pgsql-advocacy] PostgreSQL.org Design Proposal ("Dave Page" <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk>) |
List | pgsql-www |
Dave, Thanks for the background. I've been on this list for two months now and have not seen this information - and you explain the needs well. Some quick explanations, the easiest ones first: I'm not pimping Mambo. Currently it would not support what you need anyway - it has just recently been integrated with ADOdb to support postgres, and i18n hasn't had the time to get integrated with the new core. II am clearly offering to help (and not just complain), and wanting to understand if my efforts would actually be used if I did. I'm also busy working on other FOSS projects, with significant time involved. So if I spend the additional time away from my wife and kids then I want to know it was worth it - that's not too much to ask, is it? Again, I am not complaining, I am pointing out some pretty alarming issues (even if my observations are/were incorrect). Dave pointing out several things has made a much bigger impact on my opinion than petty insults and misguided sarcasm. Yes, I've heard of PHP, if you had been doing this (solely web application development, with either php or python) for over a decade then I'm certain you would know me by now... My objection to a do-it-yourself approach is that anything beyond PEAR and PHP is proprietary. That means that you wrote it; and as such then you have to support it, and you have to document it, and you have to improve it, and you have to upgrade it to keep compatibility with changes to HTML_QuickForm and DB and so on... With a CMS, you'd typically be using a finished system that had been developed by dozens of people, with years of experience, with a lifespan that supports itself (free upgrades). Such a waste, IMHO. I agree that mirroring is a huge problem, and anything less than the heavyweight systems (Zope/Plone, for example) will have major issues. Mirroring a dynamic site in general is a major issue, and switching to a homegrown one just adds to the complexity and effort, no? And I wasn't being rude IMHO, I've already picked on Dave for his browsing preferences. He says he has a huge monitor, but surfs the web like he is on a Mac Plus. Having a design that supports 800x600 to support the handicapped and comply with accessibility laws is great in my book. I just think Dave is being a weirdo for using such a little browser window ;-) Sorry that wasn't so apparent in my previous email. So we are 95% there. It definitely makes sense to get the new site up before making any drastic changes, and give that approach time to prove its mettle. Knowing the amount of effort that has been invested, and why things were done the way they were, I'm happy helping where I can and not trying to change direction. My intent was never to disparage or discourage, just to clarify some things that are not apparent to someone that has been lurking for the last two months. -- Mitch