CMF for Cotonti

Analysis, synthesis, discussion

GHengeveld	#23778 2010-03-26 06:50
Team Bedankt: 52 tijden	While Kohana is my favorite CMF (except for routing which I don't quite understand yet), I think there is no direct need to rebuilt Cotonti on top of Kohana. It would be wise to keep an eye on Hanami though, maybe we can fork that instead. @ez: You're mostly talking about modules/plugins. We're discussing core features and core programming style here. I agree with you that OO is not always the best solution, but it is certainly the most flexible way to do things. Although our currect plugin system works quite well, it could be way more flexible, which is only possible by going OO (or putting hooks everywhere). My personal preference goes to rebuilding Cotonti on top of Kohana (or Hanami). Unfortunately this will take way too much time. Taking that into account, I think continuing work on our own CMF is a better idea, going more OO and reusing Kohana features. In general, I think the discussion is more about choosing a direction for Cotonti. Right now, we're somewhere in between being a CMF and a CMS. Cotonti isn't competitive in either of these fields (in my opinion). I think we should make a choice to become either a CMF (aimed at speed, so very little OO) or a CMS (based on another CMF).

GHengeveld

#23778 2010-03-26 06:50

While Kohana is my favorite CMF (except for routing which I don't quite understand yet), I think there is no direct need to rebuilt Cotonti on top of Kohana. It would be wise to keep an eye on Hanami though, maybe we can fork that instead.

@ez: You're mostly talking about modules/plugins. We're discussing core features and core programming style here. I agree with you that OO is not always the best solution, but it is certainly the most flexible way to do things. Although our currect plugin system works quite well, it could be way more flexible, which is only possible by going OO (or putting hooks everywhere).

My personal preference goes to rebuilding Cotonti on top of Kohana (or Hanami). Unfortunately this will take way too much time. Taking that into account, I think continuing work on our own CMF is a better idea, going more OO and reusing Kohana features.

In general, I think the discussion is more about choosing a direction for Cotonti. Right now, we're somewhere in between being a CMF and a CMS. Cotonti isn't competitive in either of these fields (in my opinion). I think we should make a choice to become either a CMF (aimed at speed, so very little OO) or a CMS (based on another CMF).