Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: PGDN and Bricolage.

From: "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>
To: "Gevik babakhani" <gevik(at)xs4all(dot)nl>,"Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>, "Rod Taylor" <pg(at)rbt(dot)ca>
Cc: <pgsql-www(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PGDN and Bricolage.
Date: 2005-06-21 21:28:04
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-www
> Hi All,
> Having spent a couple of hours playing with Bricolage and 
> read the docs, I find it to be a very powerful backed system 
> for a CMS. However I was wondering if we need all this or is 
> there any yet simpler CMS system that meets our needs? 
> Bricolage being so huge I find it to be overkill.
> But this is my humble opinion. My knowledge stops where perl 
> comes in really. 
> What do you think?

I do believe Bricolage does a whole lot of stuff we don't need. If it is
as easy/easier to get going than something less capable, I don't see
that as a problem. Only if Bricolage reqiures *more* work than the less
capable (but capable enough) solution it becomes a problem.

Personally I don't really care Bricolage vs others - but it has to be
something that has a relatively low maintenance burden once it's set up.
And it has to be really easy for contributors to get their stuff in.

You know from previous posts what I *think* about these major CMS vs
really-simple-roll-your-own, but that's just my personal guesses. It's
the end reuslt that counts - and whichever tool fits best to get there
should be used. If you have another CMS in mind that fits the need, then
I definitly think it's worth investigating in parallell with bricolage
to determine which would be better long-term.


pgsql-www by date

Next:From: Kenneth MarshallDate: 2005-06-21 21:30:35
Subject: Re: PGDN and Bricolage.
Previous:From: Rod TaylorDate: 2005-06-21 21:23:24
Subject: Re: PGDN and Bricolage.

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group