ContentParts and how to include new ones

[duergner]

Hi Oliver,

just a little I noticed lately when adding new own content parts. It's quite a lot of work to integrate a new contentpart as one has to modify a lot of files not directly involved by that contentpart like the ones where you just have to add a new case statement.

Wouldn't it be better to integrate contentparts automatically when they have a specific name and are in a specific directory?

Another one related to the one above is that there a several file to be created when adding a new contentpart. Wouldn't it be better to have just one file with different functions in it? Perhaps a class contentpart that has some functions already implemented like saving and restoring the content from the database. Each new contentpart could then be e subclass of that one and would just need to implement the methods that differ from the basic ones.

[duergner]

Has no one an opinion on that?

[Jérôme]

You addressed Oliver and he is the only one who has the opinion that counts.

I consider your idea a good attempt on the subject, but as far as I know, this is not the "lane" phpwcms is going to take, because this behaviour would especially support the external developers of content parts.

Olivers goal is (if I may say what I think) to make phpwcms a stable system that is first and foremost not made or contructed to be modded or extended by external programmers, because every external "influence" can cause instability.

phpwcms is not meant to be against MODs and additional content parts, but it is not yet the time to go into that direction.

On the other side: phpwcms is already a stable system and it is published under the terms of the GPL. So why don't you grad the actual version and make a system that especially fits your needs and perhaps the needs of others?

If you then show your work to Oliver and he thinks it is ripe to be included to the "standard" phpwcms system, he will certainly bappreciate this. Best example is my Graphical Text MOD which is being included into the core, too. I had the idea and Oliver is improving and adapting it.

Alternatively, try to contact him via PM - he is a busy man (and that is the only reason I am answering here instead of waiting until he answers himself) and has not always the time to look into all new posts.

Many greetings
- Jérôme

[duergner]

You addressed Oliver and he is the only one who has the opinion that counts.

You're right. I realized that just after posting the second one.

I consider your idea a good attempt on the subject, but as far as I know, this is not the "lane" phpwcms is going to take, because this behaviour would especially support the external developers of content parts.

Olivers goal is (if I may say what I think) to make phpwcms a stable system that is first and foremost not made or contructed to be modded or extended by external programmers, because every external "influence" can cause instability.

I've got a different opinion on that as these external contentparts are not part of the main phpwcms tree as long as they are not considered to be stable but just mod's anyone could add as he wants and knows that this might cause an instable system.

Think of it just like the linux kernel development process oder Debian process.

phpwcms is not meant to be against MODs and additional content parts, but it is not yet the time to go into that direction.

But I think the later one wants to integrate this the harder it will be.

On the other side: phpwcms is already a stable system and it is published under the terms of the GPL. So why don't you grad the actual version and make a system that especially fits your needs and perhaps the needs of others?

If you then show your work to Oliver and he thinks it is ripe to be included to the "standard" phpwcms system, he will certainly bappreciate this. Best example is my Graphical Text MOD which is being included into the core, too. I had the idea and Oliver is improving and adapting it.

This is a point to look at but I think as long as Oliver hisself is working and changing a lot in this part of phpwcms it doesn't make sense to try another line yet. Cause I think there will be quite a lot of things that'll be done nearly the same way in both solutions like integration of templates and so on.

And this will be a modification that'll go deeper in the core of phpwcms than GT mod does I think.

[Oliver Georgi]

But I think the later one wants to integrate this the harder it will be.

The later the better at the moment. Like Jérôme said: I'm not against MODs. But there are some general things missing at the moment and also not thought until finish like frontend users, backend users permissions and such stuff.

I'm not willing to integrate others in the process of development at the moment because I have a logistical (time) problem. Jérôme knows what I mean. Every new development would force me to have a look on it.

Wait until release 1.2 is out.

Oliver

[duergner]

Good. I think I'll start considering some basic things and how such a contentpart class/file should/could look like.

[Oliver Georgi]

As I requested - do not waste your time for something like this at the moment. Everything has to be rewritten and many enhancements has to be done - I'm working on it.

Oliver

[ri_thomas]

hi i'm new to phpwcms. Actualy i have not installed it, just read the documentation, watched the flash movie and poked around the forum.

I have noticed that this project is similar but not the same as another project i have tried jetbox

http://jetboxone.sourceforge.net/

http://www.opensourcecms.com/index.php? ... iew&id=169.

its strong point is a thing called containers similar to content parts. In jetbox it is not diffuclt almost point and click to add a new differtent type of container(content parts).

its weak point however is that there is no mechanism to help with the layout of the frontend ( the webpage the user sees) putting the content where you want it without much code manipulation an area from what ive seen phpwcms has excellent control.

maybe it could be a jumpiing off point to make contentparts more flexible and jetbox more frontend friendly

[Ben]

I too, have dabbled in JetBox One. At first glance it seems promising, but has some major issues. I agree with ri_thomas in regard to the ease of adding new containers. I think that WCMS is more complex and that this may not work, though. Thoughts anyone?

[Oliver Georgi]

is in preparation - very soon

[Plauderer]

I'ld like to add some additional thoughts to this discussion. I like the simplyness of phpwcms but then you are quite restricted to what you've got.
So i understand and agree to duergner's request.

Maybe you can add an additional contenttype which is using some sort of content templates in a special directory. I think this way you can easily add content types by making 2 templates (one for frontend one for backend). This, enabling the user to fully edit the appearance of his pages. (still within the layout but i see no problems there)

Maybe i can help you on this. But i fully understand your time-problem! Maybe i can do this on my own and show you the result. Just, right now i'm stuck in another project, so ...

Cheers, Plauderer

[duergner]

Maybe you can add an additional contenttype which is using some sort of content templates in a special directory. I think this way you can easily add content types by making 2 templates (one for frontend one for backend). This, enabling the user to fully edit the appearance of his pages. (still within the layout but i see no problems there)

I think that's not enough. 'Cause that are only two of four/five files that are necessary for a new content-type. There are in addition to the two you mentioned one for the listing when viewing the whole article in the backend (OK that could be included in the backend template somehow I think). But the two others, one for saving the content to the database and one for restoring it again and perhaps some functions needed by this contenttype must be present and should be be included in the templates.

And then your suggestions wouldn't be better then mine when including these two or three necessary files IMHO.

[Plauderer]

I think that's not enough. 'Cause that are only two of four/five files that are necessary for a new content-type. There are in addition to the two you mentioned one for the listing when viewing the whole article in the backend (OK that could be included in the backend template somehow I think). But the two others, one for saving the content to the database and one for restoring it again and perhaps some functions needed by this contenttype must be present and should be be included in the templates.

I think we're talking of the same. I was thinking how to easily integrate your idea of template files (which i really agree with) into phpwcms. And my thought was to make an additional content type, let us call it "Customized" where you have to choose a template from a list (built from the files within a specified directory) and then getting the necessary fields to put the content in.
IMHO you would need only 2 templates. One for the backend, defining fields (type, name, etc.) and one for the frontend like those for the articlesummary. Ofcourse that aren't all necessary functions. but those doesn't have much to do with the templates, no?

And then your suggestions wouldn't be better then mine when including these two or three necessary files IMHO.

As i said it was more an idea how to integrate your possibility of using templates.
I guess i haven't made myself clear enough!

Cheers, Plauderer

[Oliver Georgi]

this is planned - really.

It will be "custom content part" - you can create multiple different. These will be created in the admin section of the site by adding multiple possible parts like upload, text area, field, image.

It's also planned to integrate the possibility to hide content parts for some users and so on...

[duergner]

Nice things. I really look forward to see these. But don't hurry man, make it real good.