Cristi's overall assessment of CMS for ACS 4.x will receive no major objections from me. UI and ACS integration were both sore points for that
release
And as the manager of the project, you share a certain level of responsibility for that fact.
So you'll pardon us if we read your comments with interest but not necessarily with agreement?
I'd love to hear a justification for your:
- Using a totally different db api than the rest of the ACS. Even though you were building a standalone CMS in the beginning there is absolutely *no* excuse for ignoring the ACS db api design development that was going on at the same time, and *no* excuse for spinning your own solution.
This was compounded by developing the CMS in a pseudo-OO style which is foreign to the rest of the ACS, and stupid UI differences like, for instance, requiring ACS users to set up a screen name to log into the (original non-integrated) version of the CMS.
With all due lack of respect, Karl, in many ways the CMS truly and undeniably sucks.
- The UI problems didn't only exist in the integrated version of the CMS, but rather in the released standalone version that's been out for, what, a year? Exactly what's the excuse for this?
My advice - don't pontificate until after you deliver good software. You're not alone at aD in writing condescending, "follow us to the promised land because we're so *bleeping* on top of it", posts to the OpenACS forums.
Belay the condescending tone and write code that doesn't suck.
*maybe* we'll listen to you then. You'll still have to drop the condescending tone, I'm afraid. I personally don't do well with condescending words unless I'm writing them.
