Re: Proposal for building knowledgebase website. - Mailing list pgsql-www
From | Gevik Babakhani |
---|---|
Subject | Re: Proposal for building knowledgebase website. |
Date | |
Msg-id | 200506101005.j5AA5mV1032898@smtp-vbr3.xs4all.nl Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: Proposal for building knowledgebase website. ("Dave Page" <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk>) |
Responses |
Re: Proposal for building knowledgebase website.
|
List | pgsql-www |
Hello all, So what is the plan at this moment? Hoe is going to do what? Regards, Gevik. > -----Original Message----- > From: pgsql-www-owner@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-www- > owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Dave Page > Sent: Friday, June 10, 2005 10:24 AM > To: Magnus Hagander; josh@agliodbs.com; Marc G. Fournier > Cc: pgsql-www@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: [pgsql-www] Proposal for building knowledgebase website. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Magnus Hagander [mailto:mha@sollentuna.net] > > Sent: 10 June 2005 09:02 > > To: josh@agliodbs.com; Marc G. Fournier > > Cc: Dave Page; pgsql-www@postgresql.org > > Subject: RE: [pgsql-www] Proposal for building knowledgebase website. > > > > 3) How does bric handle the logins? Right now there is one > > login for the > > /admin/ stuff, but it's not exactly flexible to maintain the passwords > > there. And we need some kind of "unified login system" between the > > different parts IMHO - so you don't need a separate account to > > edit/submit doc comments from editing techdocs pages. > > I don't believe this is necessary, and am currently envisaging Bricolage > as being an almost totally stand-alone system, integrated with the main > site purely via CVS and a suitable script to add/remove/update files > every few minutes or so. > > The downside of that is that there are 2 authoring interfaces, one for > the main part of the site, and one for the PGDN or whatever it gets > called. I do not think this is an issue though, as the whole point of > using Bricolage is to allow people other than use to do the work. At > worst it will mean that maybe 5 or 6 of us might use both interfaces. > > The upsides of such an architecture include: > > - Vastly simplified implementation. > - No dependence on Bricolage. If it all goes belly-up, then we (the > webmasters/sysadmins) only have to worry about fixing CVS->Webserver. > Bric could be fixed in a more leisurely manner. > - Changes/upgrades to Bric or organisational issues for the PGDN > contributors needn't concern us in any way, as long as the same output > is produced in the same place. > > > That said, personally I think people are vastly > > overestimating the work > > needed to just stick a WYSIWYG editor into the current > > framework and be > > done with it. I know I did one of these for work a couple of > > weeks back, > > and it took me *2 hours*. I looked into using it straight up for the > > postgresql site, but I got stuck on the HTML validation stuff. > > Agreed. > > > And I also think peopel are vastly *underestimating* the work > > needed to > > get a "stock CMS" to "play nice" with what we already have. > > Not necessarily IMHO, if we take the approach I suggest above. > > Regards, Dave. > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your > joining column's datatypes do not match