As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
On my first job interview, I was asked why did I build my own CMS? Why not to use one of existing CMS, Wordpress, Joomla, Drupal...? At first, I was stunned. I couldn't immediately recall all of my reasons for building my own CMS, but this was definitely one of the main reasons: It's my code and if I want to change something in that CMS (which I often have to do, because each website I build needs CMS with different functions) it's not a big problem. For some time I've been using Wordpress and one of the main things that distracted me from using it was discovering bugs in code that wasn't written by me and this bugs were often, especially if I made some changes to CMS or added a plugin...
Here, I can find these 8 reasons why NOT to build own CMS:
It won’t meet users’ needs
It’s too much work
It won’t be a standard solution
It won’t be extendible fast enough
It won’t be tested well enough
It won’t be easily changeable
It won’t add any value
Create content, not functionality
Quote from the same page:
So the main question to ask yourself
is: ‘Why am I really trying to
re-solve a problem that has already
been solved before?’
Well, I definitely agree that it's hard to invent CMS that hasn't been already invented, but on other hand, I think every CMS is (or should be) individual... it maybe won't have a million of functions, it will have 3 functions but their usage will be clear (to a user) and do all that one site needs to have. I think also that it is not good to give to a client a CMS with a lot of functions that are never used and it looks probably more professional when website and CMS together look like one product.
I would also like to comment some quote parts:
"It’s too much work" - I agree, but when using existing CMS and customizing it to website needs and can sometimes be very hard job or mission impossible.
"It won’t be easily changeable" - I disagree with this one.
What is your opinion on this one, why did you develop or didn't develop your own CMS?
Ile
This is an interesting question that applies to most development, not just when building a CMS.
In general, I would say that it's a bad idea to reinvent the wheel (and most of your 8 arguments are correct in most cases), but there are exceptions. The first one that comes to mind is one from Joel Spolsky, In Defense of Not-Invented-Here Syndrome:
If it's a core business function -- do
it yourself, no matter what.
The point is, if you're making your money directly from building content management systems, you should not take one from someone else and tweak it until it fits you. You'd rather be in full control over your own product.
Edit:
Also, don't forget that the urge to reinvent things stems (among other things) from a fundamental law of programming:
It's easier to write code than it is to read it
This does not mean that we should take the road that appears to be easier but it explains why we fall for it. Take the challenge and actually read some code, rather than write it, from time to time.
I would build a CMS because it can be fun and a great learning experience.
However, any open source CMS can be customized to any client's need. The biggest problem is that you have to understand how that CMS works in order to be able to change it well.
Either way you would be faced with quite a big task, but I must agree with those who say that you shouldn't start from scratch (unless you are doing it to learn some new technology) exactly for the reasons stated in your question... As they say, don't reinvent the wheel unless you want to learn about wheels.
I've found it works when the context of the project is larger than just a 'content site'. I've worked on a number of real estate sites where the bulk of the content is coming in from data feeds, or already existing in databases that have had their structure set up long before you were involved. Really, we only had a handful of BS 'content' pages that made up the site that were rarely updated. What they really needed was a simple interface to data entry. It was far easier to build some one off components than try and shoehorn an existing system on top of an out of the box CMS.
Like others mentioned though, you must consider overall requirements. Is there workflow involved? Dynamic navigation? Then I'd start leaning more towards out of the box CMS's, but many times people say they need a CMS, when they really just need a WYSIWIG interface to a database. But sometimes not...
It seems to me that the biggest reason NOT to build your own CMS (besides security issues) is lack of support and upgrade path. I consider it a disservice to clients to put them on a custom CMS and then have to rely on you only support and updates. Even worse is having them pay for the development of the custom CMS - they are paying you to reinvent the wheel no matter how simple the site requirements are.
There are plenty of CMS options out there that will allow you to add your own custom extensions if your requirements are beyond what is built in.
The best reason (possibly only) to build a custom CMS is to learn a language well. Building a CMS is a great way to learn web development, but it's not a great way to service your clients.
As a team leader that is always being pushed to do more with less, I too ask the question "why would you write your own?" There are more CMS packages out there than there are programming languages and I find it difficult to believe that you cannot find one that meets most (if not all) customer, business and cost requirements.
If you find that code changes are needed, opt for an open source solution, make your changes and share as needed or desired.
I do know that many times a CMS systems is NOT what is needed. Many customers need a Content Editing System. What I mean is that someone technical puts a site in place and the customer adds/edits/removes pages. The pages are already well designed and formatted. In these cases, I can see where it may be quicker to design & implement something from scratch rather than chopping down a CMS with access rights or removing/hiding functionality.
Unless you're building one for the experience, there's only one real reason for building your own: It's cheaper and/or easier than using one on the market that meets your requirements.
Related
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 11 years ago.
What do you think about both?
I began reading a book about Catalyst, and found it pretty complex as compared to Dancer.
so now I'm giving Dancer a try, and it looks easier to learn and more "human friendly".
I think David's comment is very accurate and excellent. However, as someone who has done development in both but is not a developer on either perhaps I can be slightly more objective (and technical) in what the differences are.
Both frameworks provide a variation on the Web MVC paradigm.
Catalyst's main level of abstraction is the Controller. Catalyst expects you to break separate logic out into separate packages in some logical fashion (Login code goes here, Registration code goes there, Search functionality over here). This works incredibly well if you have a team of programmers since each of you can work on separate files and not step all over each other during merges. Catalyst provides a lot of tools for making the Controller logic extensible and flexible, I think the premier example of this is Chained actions which let you split up and build a complex flow for any given request. The downside is that it becomes very seductive to put your business logic into the Controllers and you end up with very fat logic in the Controllers where it (theoretically) belongs in the Model.
Dancer's main level of abstraction is the Route. My experience with Dancer is this leads to much smaller applications. Partly my experience here is tinged with the fact that I have dealt with several thousand line applications in Catalyst but I have yet to write a Dancer app that is longer than 200 lines (with a much smaller scope). I think however that this experience holds true. The push in Dancer is in keeping the Controller logic very thin because it doesn't have the same tools for managing complex behaviors there that Catalyst does.
Honestly I've enjoyed working in both of them. They both provide different opinions on what writing a web application is supposed to be. I would, given the time and inclination, recommend learning both ultimately.
This is a somewhat subjective question, but I'll try to give you an answer in an objective way. First things first, a disclaimer: I'm part of the Dancer development team, so my opinion should of course be considered somewhat biased :)
Catalyst is more widely used than Dancer, and so there's more community support behind it - if you were to look for contractors with experience working with either framework, say, you'd be more likely to find developers who've used Catalyst. So, if you're looking for commercial support, that would be a good reason to choose Catalyst.
Dancer is a younger project, and targeted more towards smaller projects, making getting up and running quick and easy, and trying to stay out of your way. That's not to say that Dancer isn't suitable for larger projects, however; the same habit of staying out of your way means you can organise your project in the way that suits you.
However, it has picked up a lot of support, and there's a growing community of helpful users and developers on IRC and the mailing list, and more and more useful plugins being released all the time. As with Catalyst, Dancer is designed so that you can pick and choose your preferred template engine, session storage backend etc, and it's easy to extend the framework by writing your own plugins if you need to.
For user testimonials to see what people say about Dancer, see the section at the bottom of the homepage on the new website: http://www.perldancer.org/
In the interests of showing other options, there's also Mojolicious, another modern Perl web framework which has been gaining in popularity lately.
Catalyst provides the same abstraction that Dancer does, Dancer's strength or rather Catalyst's weakness or rather Dancer's weakness is in how Catalyst forces the developer to adhere to Perl OO best practices and the MVC design pattern. After doing webapps for a while, this will all become apparent.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
I am working with a small team (2 others) of developers that are geographically dispersed, and I'm looking for good ways for us to collaborate on specs... We're thinking we might use Google Docs to write the spec in so we can all have access to modify it in a central location.
What have you done? What good ideas do you have?
If you have an intranet or VPN, I would actually consider installing and using a small Wiki for these specs.
Compared to Google docs you get:
Much better versioning and change tracking (IMHO)
Much easier to start new documents for subsections
An actual markup rather than WYSIWYG (a matter of taste, I prefer LaTeX to Word).
Possible to attach variety of other file types
Very easy to backup
Very easy to create an offline version
You don't have to worry about storing sensitive materials elsewhere.
The disadvantage is that it is not WYSIWYG, which may or may not be an issue to you.
Of course, you can pick a Wiki implementation that supports a better editor, and possibly even a synchronous collaboration one.
Google Wave - exactly what it's meant for - collaboration
IMHO, a word processor is the wrong tool for a programmer. A spec should be written in a plain text editor, and utilize lightweight markup such as reStructuredText, AsciiDoc etc.
The benefits of such an approach are:
There are excellent tools to manage plain text, that are already in the hands of programmers (VCS, automated build systems, diff, patch, programming editors, grep, etc.)
A markup language allow for expressing intent rather then formatting.
That in mind, a Wiki seem to be the obvious choice.
Personally my tool chain of choice is:
reStructuredText as the markup language.
Trac as a Wiki
Firefox + the it's all text extension
Emacs + rst-mode
The choice of technology is one issue and Google docs is a good choice IMHO. But the real challenge is how to manage the process e.g. divide the tasks.
My suggestion is to first make sure that the platform and all related technologies are decided-upon as best as feasible. Then, compose a a thorough table of contents. A well-designed TOC will allow you to divide tasks properly and not "step" on each others' work. From then on you each "flesh" out your assigned sections as well as review each others' work.
In effect, each TOC subsection becomes an atomic unit of work that can be assigned and maintained by an individual who is also accountable for said section(s).
Good luck!
I think it depends on
How heavily into writing the specs you all are
If you're likely writing at the same time
Whether you intend to publish the specs.
Google Docs is nice and easy to get started with. It's also great that you can now export folders all at once. Still, for something that's going to be published to the web, a wiki or general cms is a better presentation vehicle. A wiki will also integrate with your existing site.
If you've got small specs, primarily written by one person then use whatever tool is available where you're hosting the project code or website. If you're not likely to be editing at the same time then a wiki is good.
I've done the wiki thing, the passed document thing and the Google Docs thing.
The wiki thing has a low starting effort and lasts a pretty long time. At a certain size it does get to be a pain.
The passed document thing (writes, email, edit, email, etc) only works while one person is starting everything up. As soon as there are even minor edits then it sucks.
The Google Docs thing is fine until you have several docs and several editors or want to publish it online.
hth
This isn't programming related, but I've personally used Google Docs to write shared documents and found it easy to use.
I would suggest enabling Google Gears however, in the event that the Google servers go down momentarily or an internet connection isn't available.
For writing specs collaboratively, you could try Gingko.
It's a card-tree editor, which means it's a mix between index cards and an outliner, with real-time collaboration and full Markdown support (as well as basic LaTeX).
We are still missing several features (version history, comments, etc), but for some the benefits of having everything in a tree structure outweigh these drawbacks.
Writing specs with it is great, because you can create a card for each user story, and drill into it as much as you like (and organize them into categories if you'd like).
http://gingkoapp.com
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 13 years ago.
Improve this question
I want to convert a website to use a Content Management System for updating a large number of content pages for a website. The current website is mostly ASP.NET, but I am considering converting to PHP if it means I will have better integration with the "CMS of choice" in the market. I have heard of Joomla! and other CMS' but I would like some answers to which ones are considered better. Features that I need to support are custom sidebar and tab menus (with expandable javascript drop downs for example). Can anyone tell me of a good solution?
You should look at opensourcecms.com. It's a site that hosts demos for the majority of open source CMS's out there in both PHP and ASP.NET. You can try each one out and read the features and reviews. It's a good way to find one that meets your needs without actually installing them.
Joomla and Drupal are your most common and popular PHP based CMS solutions.
On the .NET side I would suggest only DotNetNuke. The amount of development that goes on in that CMS is second to none and there is a huge marketplace for content, modules, themes, etc. There is pretty much everything available in DNN to meet your potential needs.
The "best" CMS really, really depends on your requirements.
I will say that Joomla is pretty much typical PHP spaghetti, and I hate it, but it might work for you.
Kentico (a .NET CMS) is a pretty decent one that I've deployed a few times. Microsoft CMS is supposed to be decent, I haven't tried it though.
Without knowing specifically your requirements, I find it impossible to give a solid recommendation, though.
I didn't work with these applications yet, but AFAIK TYPO3 and ezPublish (both PHP) are considered much more professional than e.g. Joomla.
Drupal has a long history, proven track record of success (many high profile use cases, including the Obama campaign, Mozilla Firefox, and MTV in the UK), and a boatload of free modules and themes so you can start somewhere good. Drupal is also highly customizable in terms of how data is stored in terms of content types. Drupal has excellent consulting and contracting help.
Joomla is a strong second, but a quick look at Joomla criticism on wikipedia, and I think the choice gets much clearer. Two out of the three criticisms of Drupal on wikipedia are that it's too complicated, which is really a subjective matter as compared to the shortcomings of Joomla.
If web development is a hobby for you, then use an open source CMS such as those mentioned. If it is your profession, consider working towards writing your own that meets your needs. The first few will likely be a little rough, but in the long run it can prove very fulfilling and must more customizable than anything off the shelf.
Writing your own also forces you to consistently expand your skills and learn the intricacies of the programming language.
I need to create a internal website and can't figure out if we should be writing our own, or using an existing framework.
Most of the website will essentially be a front end to a database. We need to have a number of people enter data into forms. We then want to be able to show different views of all this data -- including running small queries (e.g. how many resources do we have with attribute 'X'). As is usually the case with this, we will want to tweak the UI on a regular basis.
There actual data design is not a simple 1:1 mapping of resource to entry. For example, we might track several attributes for one item as the "base set of data" for that item. Then we could have several additional sets of data.
Imagine a recipe application. You might have a recipse for a starter. This could then be referenced by several other recipes that need that same information.
I feel like this is best suited for a general framework (Ruby on Rails, Django, etc), but I wonder if it might not be good for a "traditional" CMS platform like Drupal? I specifically mention Drupal since the people that would develop this have the most knowledge using php and MySql.
I usually lean towards wanting to use an existing platform, but am interested in other people's thoughts. To give you an idea of scope, I would imagine if we wrote this from scratch we are probably talking about 3-5 weeks of development.
Would you recommend writing our own, or using an existing framework? If you would suggest using something that exists what would you recommend?
Would you consider this to be best suited for a straight framework or a straight CMS?
Thanks!
It's possible that Drupal will be a good solution for you, though you'll probably need a few key additional modules like the "Content Creation Kit" (CCK) and "Views".
Unlike other web CMS systems (WordPress, Exponent, phpNuke), Drupal treats your entries as a "pool" of content, from which you pull various subsets for different areas of your site.
There is a lot of documentation for Drupal (almost too much), the biggest problem is finding the piece that's relevant to what you're trying to achieve. Diving on to one of the interactive IRC channels can be a good idea, as the community is quite helpful and is almost always willing to give you a pointer in the right direction.
The power, flexiblity and capability of Drupal is both its biggest strength and weakness - I know it took me a bit of effort to get my head around key concepts, and I'm far from being a Drupal Expert.
One last comment: Having written my own CMS from scratch, which I abandoned in favour of Drupal, I'd suggest your 3-5 week estimate is likely on the light side.
Stay away from Drupal for any site that requires customized functionality. I recently used Drupal for a website at work, and it was VERY difficult to figure out how to get it to do what I wanted it to do. There is a lot of documentation out there, but all of it is unhelpful -- it answers very specific questions about specific issues but does not provide any context as to how you would approach building the site as a whole. If you're a programmer, using a more general framework will probably work better, as CMS's are designed for a specific kind of site, and if you want your site to have non-standard functionality you are going to be fighting the system instead of working with it. If your developers are most experienced in PHP, try one of the PHP frameworks that mimics the architecture of Rails -- e.g. cakePHP or CodeIgniter.
CMSes usually make sense when you have a broad and potentially expanding array of different content types and modes you need to handle. Drupal has literally dozens. Given than you mentioned RoR, it sounds like what you need is more of a MVC style framework. Maybe similar to the sort of thing stackoverflow was built with. .NET an issue for you?
If you are really limited to 3-5 weeks, however, I think a Rails-based strategy makes sense so go with RoR or CodeIgniter
If Drupal can do what you need easily I would say go with Drupal. I don't know much about Drupal though.
Otherwise, what you describe sounds like a data driven web app or more like a reporting app. It sounds like you might have some very specific needs or that users might want very specific needs in the future. That is something hard to get from premade software since you have no idea what users are going to request. Since I'm a programmer I would probably want to build it myself.
Funny you should ask... I just came across this in SD Time's Linkpalooza this afternoon:
Ten free powerful content management systems…
There are at least 4 more mentioned in the comments to this post.
It seems to make little sense to develop a new one with so many from which to choose!
BTW, this is neither a recommendation nor endorsement of any particular CMS.
Treat Drupal as a framework. Core modules + CCK + Views is a good start to build on.
If you're doing something that you might want to expose to other applications, consider the Services module. A lot of interesting things have been done with flex frontends connected to drupal running services with amfphp.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
I'm about to start a project for a customer who wants CMS-like functionality. They want users to be able to log in, modify a profile, and a basic forum. They also wish to be able to submit things to a front page.
Is there a framework or barebones CMS that I could expand on or tailor to my needs? I don't need anything as feature-rich or fancy as Drupal or Joomla. I would actually prefer a framework as opposed to a pre-packaged CMS.
I am confident I could code all this from scratch, but would prefer not to, as something like a framework would significantly cut down on my time spent coding, and more on design and layout.
Edit: I should have been more specific. I'm looking for a Content Management System that will be run on a Debian server. So no .net preferably.
I think i may end up going with Drupal, and only adding modules that I need. Turbogears looks a bit daunting, and i'm still not quite sure what it does after it's 20 minute intro video...
TinyCMS doesn't look like it's been touched since... 2000?!?
I think the best is CMS Made Simple. Seems like drupal takes awhile to customize.
http://www.cmsmadesimple.org/
tinyCMS is about as barebones as you can get. (edit: fixed link, I had gotten a little click happy and linked to the wrong thing)
#modesty, I would definitely NOT use SharePoint, as it is anything but barebones. It is a fairly expensive product (especially when compared to the many free alternatives), and it has quite the learning curve to do anything interesting.
Woo, another Debian nut!
I think you need to be a bit more specific here, Forum != CMS. Is this for internal company or external customer use? What language(s) do you know/prefer? There's no point in recommending a Perl or PHP framework if your language of choice is Ruby. Do you need to plan for scalability?
What's wrong with Joomla or Drupal? I would argue that they can be successfully used on small sites. Maybe a framework isn't what you're looking for, maybe you just need a library or two (eg. PEAR?). If you need something smaller, maybe writing your own backend library that you can reuse for future projects would be a better solution.
For a one-size-fits-all framework have a look at Turbogears. ("it's a big hammer, that makes every problem look like a nail")
I've been obsessing over TikiWiki lately. Although it has "wiki" in the name, its full name is "TikiWiki CMS/Groupware" and it's an interesting piece of software. It has a real everything and the kitchen sink feel. It includes support for wiki, blogs, articles, forums, and files out of the box (and a ton of other stuff too). I think the real appeal to me is that most of the stuff can all be integrated together, wiki pages can include other wiki pages and articles (which is more useful than you might think). It's in RC stage for release 2.0 and is still missing a ton of features, but I think I might keep using it and contribute some of the features that are missing, it's a really interesting base right now.
The Mozilla support site is implemented using TikiWiki, for an example of a really beautiful implementation.
Drupal's include system should keep everything relatively lightweight as long as you only include what you need. Despite the fact that it comes with a smattering of modules, what you choose to enable is all that will be included at runtime. If you have to get under the hood and make modifications, I'm also a firm believer that Drupal is a more friendly and elegant system than Joomla. We use Drupal at my work-as much as a framework as a CMS-and it has proven pretty reliable in keeping development practices at a high level.
I realize I'm a couple years late to the party but I was looking for something like this myself and ran across this post while doing Google searches for 'barebones cms'. Along with this post, this turns up:
http://barebonescms.com/
There is also a forum on that site.
A similar combination could probably meet or exceed all of your criteria. Although, as others pointed out, you weren't particularly specific on the details.
While the original author is probably long gone, hopefully someone else finds this useful.
I would suggest PmWiki, it's something between a framework/wiki. By default there aren't even users, just different passwords, for different tasks, but using PmWiki Cookbook 'recipes' You can add additional functionality.
You can check their philosophy to get main idea what it's about.
If you want a Rails solution, Radiant CMS is a good option. It's simple, elegant, extensible and, of course, comes with all of the benefits of being based on Ruby on Rails.
if you are looking .net you can take a look at umbraco, haven't done much with it (company i work for wanted much more functionality so went with something else) but it seemed lightweight.
Edit : if the customer wants a tiny CMS with a forum, I would still probably just go Drupal with phpBB or simple machines forum, almost positive they can share logins. Plus tomorrow the customer is going to want more and Drupal might save you some work there.
Might want to check out Drupal.
Here are the details of the technology stack that it uses.
I have never used it so I can't vouch for the quality etc but definitely worth a look.
how about you use drupal but scale down and code it according to your needs.
definitely will be faster than code-from-scratch-with-framework
I have been working with Joomla for some time and I believe it one of the best CMS for starting off a Website. I have tried others a lot, But Joomla is better because it has Numerous Extentions (Components , Modules) and also its very Easy to Customize. You could also look at the Community Builder Extension for joomla.Other requirement like Chnage Fronpage Articles etc is a Breeze....
joomla.org
For some reason Joomla Does not Suit you try Drupal.
Wordpress is a very powerful but simple CMS.
bbPress is a very simple but integrated forum (easy, Wordpress user account integration with cookies and all).
Since you have programming experience you may find Wordpress to be the perfect match (PHP, MySQL) with plenty of plugins and hooks to help you achieve what you need. For example, there is a featured posts plugin that will put selected content on the front page.
I need to jump on the Umbraco bandwagon here. As far as ease of use from a developer standpoint goes, there is nothing easier than umbraco and v. 4 has full master page support and a tone of other stuff... and it's free.
For windows take a look at the DotNetNuke is asp.net based, free and open source and easily skinned and modified, there is also a thriving market in add-on modules. In addition most hosting companies offer it as a pre-installed application
Expression Engine is fantastic. It's free to download and try but you must purchase a license if you are making a profit with it.
WordPress actually has a forum plugin - it's nothing fancy but it's there. It handles user management et al and has a big community for plugins and themes. I think it is probably the easiest CMS to install & run (I've done some legwork here). There are plugins that update the core & plugins automatically (take that Drupal). I've tested these and they seem pretty solid. As usual - backup beforehand.
For .NET MojoPortal looks pretty good and is lighter than DNN. I saw the edit but thought I'd include this anyway since it looks like it's worth checking out.
Drupal is a language unto its own - I wouldn't tackle it unless you're going to do so with some regularity, otherwise it's just another different framework to learn. The uplink into my brain is at capacity already so I gently pushed it aside. The themes tend to look the same too.
Joomla may suit your users for usability.
I'd go for a pre-made framework myself because it would have a community and expansion capacity. What your client wants today will pale into insignificance tomorrow.