Re: 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.