david at openpartnership.net
Wed Oct 26 17:19:35 EDT 2005
On 26 Oct 2005, at 21:36, Marielle Lange wrote:
> Drupal is cleanly designed with extensibility in mind and more
> flexible. Drupal provides a standard high-level API for developing
> extensions and making it easier to extend Drupal in a standard way
> with uniform look-and-feel. Drupal provides better support for
> internationalization through i18n module. Drupal has better support
> of Search-Engine-Friendly URLs in core and through modules. Drupal
> supports multiple sites with a single installation with fine-
> grained access control and ability to selectively share
> configuration settings and database tables. Drupal comes with
> better templating system.
Sure Drupal is nice. There are a couple of projects I have been
partially involved with that use Drupal - no real complaints.
> <http://www.flickr.com/photos/thox/24237747/> ... Drupal XUL
> with XMLRPC. Anticipating the future, xul compatibility is
> something very good to have.
Yes - not exactly live yet :) Also Drupal XMLRPC is a php file! -
drupal is written in python by the way. This is quite telling:
The XMLRPC library and Drupal being documented and maintained using
Trac! Basically Drupal is great for a kitchen sink community site,
but it is not a dedicated developer resource tool. We don't need all
the Drupal stuff - we need effective collaborative software
development tools integrated into Rev.
>> 3) Code and binary stack versioning linked to wiki documentation
> Drupal features content versioning. It also supports taxonomy
> support (we will need this too, this will become more and more
> important over the next 3 years).
Content versioning is not code versioning - most wiki's don't store
the full history, can loose historical data, and do not support
anything other than recent versions - no support for binary
versioning (ie stacks) and no branching etc
>> Additionally I have requirements to add the following:
>> 1) Issue tracking (tickets) and milestone support
> This means there is a main manager and a support service. Is this
> realistic? If you propose support, you give users a reason to
> expect it. Do we really want that (i.e., to end up doing
> revolution's job)? Isn't open comments more appropriate?
No. Just an organised way for people to report problems and plan
their sub-projects - milestones etc. i can see people using it to
develop components they wish to release and possibly sell - a few
people would use this if it helps them cooperate with other
developers to achieve their goal - and is easier to use than setting
up something themselves.
> Best is probably to install both and put them to the test for a
> month and then check up what are their pros and cons (often you
> discover annoyances only by experience).
> Shall we move this to a small group discussion? (somewhere on a
> wiki, with occasional reports on this list)
I would say not until there are more than 2 and a half of us :) Also
my guess is the discussion of wiki / web site integration with Rev is
not entirely off interest to the list - even if they don't fancy
actively supporting something that involves work yet :) Any request
we move the discussion elsewhere?
More information about the Use-livecode