>
>
>How is this any different to Bricolage?
>
>And how can it be better if it doesn't have any referential integrity!!!
>
I mean no offence at all. I don't know which of the two is better. It's
just that a lot of open source projects don't pay much attention to
design/look/marketing. It's not a problem for everybody as not everybody
is after a large user base.
Imagine you have two objects. You have to choose between them. One looks
ok, the other looks good. Which object you choose? The one that look
good of course. When I was to look for a CMS solution, then WebGUI would
give me a better first expression. And if I happen to be one of the
people thinking:
<quote from mysql mail list>
While foreign keys, cascades and built-in transactions are
convenient, atomicity and referential integrity are readily attained by
proper implementation and the appropriate code.
<soap box>
Setting buffers,dirty flags and commit functions really is the
responsibility of the application programmer. A lack of referential
integrity is not the same as data corruption. More creative coding
and less whining.
</soap box>
</quote from mysql mail list>
then I drop Bricolage before getting into the details.
Or take mozilla.org as an example. I don't say that with better looking
web site Mozilla would have significantly more users. But the old web
page was just ugly. It had good content so it works for the geeks but
you don't attrackt casual computer users with this. The new web page has
the same content, but it also features a lot of pictures and colors. It
is a much more attracktive web site now. So these people who before
quickly left www.mozilla.org because it didn't look like it, now will at
least spend a little more time and perhaps even read some content.
Kaarel
