We launched new forums in March 2019—join us there. In a hurry for help with your website? Get Help Now!
    • 6016
    • 55 Posts
    Quote from: BobRay

    My requirements include: “Until the user follows a login link, he should not
    see a login box, a password box, a registration link, or a lost password link.
    This decreases irrelevant clutter.”
    ...On this one, I’m afraid you just have it wrong. Take a look here: http://sd54dfl.org/.
    I

    Yes, the requirement includes a login link, but don’t rely solely on quoted text to tell the whole story. The complete description is on the review page, but let me quote a bigger chunk here:


    A user browsing the web site follows a login link, and finds himself on a login page on which he may enter his login name and password to log into the web site. After completing the login, he finds himself back on the page from which he originally followed the login/register link, but now he is logged in and can do additional things permitted to him.

    If we all agree that PHP is a Turing-complete language, then every CMS that allows raw PHP to be used also allows every possible computation to be done that could be done in any programming language; and that, of course, lets the above type of login link to be implemented (not to mention letting MODx, with enough raw PHP, do the air traffic control for the next space shuttle, or safely land a Boeing 777 even with loss of power in both engines). But this amounts to saying that every CMS that lets you use PHP has exactly the same functionality, and I hope that that’s not what you intended to say.

    Rahul




    • Rahul, I don’t understand your requirements for things that aren’t even implemented on your own home page at http://rahul.net/ ...

      Do you need a system that is plug-and-play and does everything for you out of the box? Are the aesthetics of a system’s output important? Is the ability to modify existing snippets or quickly create your own through the use of a CMS’s API important at all?

      It may bear repeating that MODx is not so much about YAPS/instant-website-just-add-water as it is about creating bespoke websites and custom applications using a combination of available add-ons or sometimes those crafted for a specific purpose.

      It may just be me and I would certainly never claim that I’m right here, but my opinion is that trying to create a set of generic rules that applies across the board will only lead to arbitrary bloat and a mediocre experience for all but a very small percentage of potential users. That’s very much against what we created MODx for in the first place.

      With MODx you might have a square peg, but at least we give you a lathe so you can turn it to fit into the round hole.
        Ryan Thrash, MODX Co-Founder
        Follow me on Twitter at @rthrash or catch my occasional unofficial thoughts at thrash.me
      • I spent more than 40 years in a cage made by others, told what I could and could not do down to the pettiest detail. I chose to focus my attention on MODx precisely because it doesn’t do anything of the kind. You want your templates based on ems or percentages? Great. You are free to do it. I am free to do otherwise. You want your login process to behave a certain way? Great. You are free to do it. I am free to do otherwise. You want your pages linked in a certain way? Great. You are free to do it. I am free to do otherwise.

        Don’t try to tell me that I have to do everything the way you think it should be done. Been there, done that.

        And yes, I do take this kind of thing too personally.
          Studying MODX in the desert - http://sottwell.com
          Tips and Tricks from the MODX Forums and Slack Channels - http://modxcookbook.com
          Join the Slack Community - http://modx.org
          • 3749
          • 24,544 Posts
          Quote from: crossconnect at Jan 23, 2008, 06:38 PM

          Quote from: BobRay

          My requirements include: “Until the user follows a login link, he should not
          see a login box, a password box, a registration link, or a lost password link.
          This decreases irrelevant clutter.”
          ...On this one, I’m afraid you just have it wrong. Take a look here: http://sd54dfl.org/.
          I

          Yes, the requirement includes a login link, but don’t rely solely on quoted text to tell the whole story. The complete description is on the review page, but let me quote a bigger chunk here:


          A user browsing the web site follows a login link, and finds himself on a login page on which he may enter his login name and password to log into the web site. After completing the login, he finds himself back on the page from which he originally followed the login/register link, but now he is logged in and can do additional things permitted to him.
          Well, you have me there. It would probably take a few minutes to make the site I referred to behave that way. I didn’t do it because it’s not appropriate for that site (although I’m curious to know how you can be so confident that the site in question doesn’t do this since you couldn’t log in smiley). If MODx behaved this way out of the box, I’d have had to go to extra effort to make it NOT behave that way. This is another good example of a "requirement" of yours that isn’t really appropriate for many web sites. As it happens, the users of the site I referred to each have only one page that allows them to do any work and, for security reasons, *they can’t see it until they log in*. It’s a different page for different users depending on their roles. MODx made it trivially easy to let me (a beginner, remember) set it up so that after logging in, they are redirected to the appropriate page for *them* -- not the page they came from, which would make no sense at all. Thus a CMS that met your requirements would be unusable for a rational design of this site.

          It appears, more and more, that what your criteria specify is a CMS that, out of the box, meets your particular needs. I don’t mean to start anything here, -- just trying to do for you what you’ve done for MODx, give some constructive criticism -- but not being open to reasonable arguments about whether *every* site on the web should have a single login page with a bounce-back, and "previous" and "next" links on every page, etc. is quite troll-like behavior. Although I guess reviewing a CMS and then jousting with users on its forum would be a new kind of trolling so there should be some points for innovation smiley.

          Bob

            Did I help you? Buy me a beer
            Get my Book: MODX:The Official Guide
            MODX info for everyone: http://bobsguides.com/modx.html
            My MODX Extras
            Bob's Guides is now hosted at A2 MODX Hosting
            • 23299
            • 1,161 Posts
            Interesting thread...

            I tried CMSMS amongst others. I quite liked it at first. To me CMSMS felt like CMS "lite"; there was just less there which is sort of appealing when you compare it to the behemoth that is Drupal. All of these CMS systems have frustration and learning curves. Its all personal choice: which poison do you want to drink?

            I am still very much new to MODx, and work commitments keep getting in the way of learning it properly. But in the end the main attraction with MODx is how adaptable it is with respect to design. To me MODx’s strength is that YOU are in control of the design process. Its a web designer’s CMS. I like how you can create your XHTML and CSS, validate it, test it and then pour it into the MODx framework. After that you use the basic TV’s and Wayfinder to create the dynamic page creation groundwork and navigation. You then pick and choose the functionality (using snippets) you need for each page or categories of pages.

            My experience with other CMS systems (including CMSMS) was that that all came at you in a more rigid manner. Some offer more modules and have easier to read documentation, but for me the whole "themes" issue got in the way. How do you create your own theme or design? More often than not you have to pick apart an existing theme and backwards engineer it in order to work on your own design. Systems like Drupal have so much tight framework that working on all the CSS is a chore. Some users might appreciate how complete and "ready out of the box" these systems are. I see the appeal for users who prefer NOT to mess with coding, CSS and cross browser issues. But for a designer who wants to create sites from the ground up with a unique vision for him/her self (or client) then MODx is a powerful tool to be sure.

            As to the whole navigation issue (previous/next pages etc) running through this thread I am totally puzzled. Bringing MODx to task for not meeting this less than desirable or widely accepted navigation route does not hold water IMHO. I like to make the navigation as clean and simple as possible. Too many sites have too many places to go with way too many links. Building attractive and usable navigation is an art form all on its own. I have a long way to go before I really master MODx but so far adding navigation is not really an issue...

            Max
              • 6016
              • 55 Posts
              I see a lot of emotionally-charged postings, to which I will make a combined response soon.

              In the meantime:

              Quote from: rthrash

              Do you need a system that is plug-and-play and does everything for you out of the box?

              I think you are taking my review, and my forum postings, as some sort of request or even demand for somebody to do something specific. They are not. My review was intended to give others the benefit of what I learnt when I experimented -- extensively -- with MODx and CMSMS. In all modesty, chances are that of all human being on the planet, dead or alive, I’m the one that knows more about BOTH CMSes. And I decide to make this knowledge available to all interested persons.

              My follow-up postings here in this forum were intended to (a) correct a LOT of misinformation that a number of people posted, AND I MEAN A LOT, and to (b) answer questions that were asked of me.

              For example, you, Rthrash, asked me some questions about the Next/Previous links. I did, and I included links to some web sites that use these links. After I did, you suddenly changed your mind about wanting to understand the concept of these links, and instead, began talking about what MODx is or isn’t.

              So far, I have seen ONE factually-sound correction to my review, and that is where you stated that the caching issue had been addressed in the current release. And even that is not really a correction, because it doesn’t point out an error in my review, but only makes it clear that a newer release doesn’t have the same problem. I have yet to see any other technically-sound suggestions or corrections. Pretty much everything else that sounded factual was based on somebody NOT READING WHAT I WROTE and then posting an erroneous assertion.

              BobRay, for example, responded to a quoted fragment, did not take an extra minute to actually read my review, confidently presented his login link as the solution that I had overlooked, and then quickly backtracked by saying that he didn’t need my type of login link anyway. Talkabout tripping all over your own feet! Not singling you out, BobRay, yours was one of the smaller errors; your message just happens to be nearby on the screen as I post this. smiley

              I’m sure you are all very nice people in person. Words on a screen bring out the worst in people, sometimes. Perhaps that’s how it ought to be -- it gives us a chance to release all that aggression in a harmless way.

              Rahul
              • Quote from: crossconnect at Jan 24, 2008, 05:22 PM

                I see a lot of emotionally-charged postings, to which I will make a combined response soon.
                That’s what happens when you post uneducated non-sense and call it something like comparative review. Try taking the time to learn more about the systems you are comparing before pushing people’s buttons.

                Quote from: crossconnect at Jan 24, 2008, 05:22 PM

                I think you are taking my review, and my forum postings, as some sort of request or even demand for somebody to do something specific. They are not. My review was intended to give others the benefit of what I learnt when I experimented -- extensively -- with MODx and CMSMS. In all modesty, chances are that of all human being on the planet, dead or alive, I’m the one that knows more about BOTH CMSes. And I decide to make this knowledge available to all interested persons.
                ROFLMAO -- thanks, I needed a good laugh this morning to release some of that aggression. You have already shown everyone on this board how little you understand about MODx. The emotionally charged responses are a defense mechanism against your misinformation.

                Quote from: crossconnect at Jan 24, 2008, 05:22 PM

                My follow-up postings here in this forum were intended to (a) correct a LOT of misinformation that a number of people posted, AND I MEAN A LOT, and to (b) answer questions that were asked of me.
                Example of pushing people’s buttons right there. Capitol letters to accentuate something that was not at all necessary, nor accurate IMHO.

                Quote from: crossconnect at Jan 24, 2008, 05:22 PM

                So far, I have seen ONE factually-sound correction to my review, and that is where you stated that the caching issue had been addressed in the current release. And even that is not really a correction, because it doesn’t point out an error in my review, but only makes it clear that a newer release doesn’t have the same problem. I have yet to see any other technically-sound suggestions or corrections. Pretty much everything else that sounded factual was based on somebody NOT READING WHAT I WROTE and then posting an erroneous assertion.

                BobRay, for example, responded to a quoted fragment, did not take an extra minute to actually read my review, confidently presented his login link as the solution that I had overlooked, and then quickly backtracked by saying that he didn’t need my type of login link anyway. Talkabout tripping all over your own feet! Not singling you out, BobRay, yours was one of the smaller errors; your message just happens to be nearby on the screen as I post this. smiley

                I’m sure you are all very nice people in person. Words on a screen bring out the worst in people, sometimes. Perhaps that’s how it ought to be -- it gives us a chance to release all that aggression in a harmless way.
                I’m speechless. You have apparently missed all of the information provided in people’s attempts to correct your misunderstanding of the product. Perhaps you just don’t get it and should move on. Not trying to be rude, but from my perspective, trying to stay outside of this discussion, you have worn out your welcome if you are not willing to try and understand what these people have tried to explain repeatedly in reply to your false assertions.
                  • 6016
                  • 55 Posts
                  Quote from: Photowebmax

                  Interesting thread...
                  But in the end the main attraction with MODx is how adaptable it is with respect to design. To me MODx’s strength is that YOU are in control of the design process. Its a web designer’s CMS. I like how you can create your XHTML and CSS...

                  I summarized MODx’s advanced functionality as "Probably excellent[4]", and footnote 4 says: "Due to lack of good advanced documentation, a lot of effort may be needed to benefit from the full power of either CMS." Do you agree or disagree with this? If you disagree, how would you improve that summary, without making it any longer?

                  Rahul
                    • 28215
                    • 4,149 Posts
                    Rahul,

                    Quote from: crossconnect at Jan 24, 2008, 05:22 PM

                    My review was intended to give others the benefit of what I learnt when I experimented -- extensively -- with MODx and CMSMS. In all modesty, chances are that of all human being on the planet, dead or alive, I’m the one that knows more about BOTH CMSes. And I decide to make this knowledge available to all interested persons.

                    You’re not really serious, right? You’re actually saying that you know more than anyone else in the world on this subject? That screams tinfoil hat to me, and is horridly arrogant. I don’t know any serious developer or reviewer that would ever make that kind of claim.

                    Furthermore, the only way to prove such a claim is to show it through your work - and you’ve only shown a gross misinterpretation of MODx’s main purpose as a web application. I don’t take a Honda Civic and try and tow 600 large logs with it; it’s not the Civic’s purpose nor intent. You’re trying to do so with MODx, and every reply you’ve had so far has been trying to tell you that.


                    My follow-up postings here in this forum were intended to (a) correct a LOT of misinformation that a number of people posted, AND I MEAN A LOT, and to (b) answer questions that were asked of me.

                    Misinformation? Are you saying that developers of MODx are giving you misinformation about their product that they have designed and developed? That seems a bit arrogant.

                    For example, you, Rthrash, asked me some questions about the Next/Previous links. I did, and I included links to some web sites that use these links. After I did, you suddenly changed your mind about wanting to understand the concept of these links, and instead, began talking about what MODx is or isn’t.
                    It doesn’t matter - your Next/Previous links were irrelevant; you were criticizing MODx for not doing something that it has NEVER intended to do. MODx gives developers and designers flexibility - not out-of-the-box custom options. I’m sorry if this doesn’t fit your mold, but it doesn’t in any way make your review valid.

                    So far, I have seen ONE factually-sound correction to my review, and that is where you stated that the caching issue had been addressed in the current release. And even that is not really a correction, because it doesn’t point out an error in my review, but only makes it clear that a newer release doesn’t have the same problem.
                    Actually, it does point out a crucial error - you’re trying to write a review with an outdated product version. No self-respecting software reviewer would attempt to do such; they always get the latest versions of products.


                    Rahul, the problem isn’t your specifics. You’re still tripping up on those.

                    We’re saying that the whole review in itself is flawed; you’re trying to criticize an orange by saying it doesn’t taste like an apple. Of course it doesn’t! It never meant, wanted, or desired to!
                      shaun mccormick | bigcommerce mgr of software engineering, former modx co-architect | github | splittingred.com
                      • 6016
                      • 55 Posts
                      Quote from: Soshite

                      By your logic, mail.google.com should have a login link, which allows you to go to ANOTHER page that has a login box. You said before, the user shouldn’t have to go in circles --- what do you think clicking a link to go to another page where you have to click again to login does? laugh
                      Interesting point. No, for two reasons.

                      First, let’s distinguish between features supported by a CMS, and features on a specific web page. Saying that a CMS should provide this type of login link is not the same as saying that every web page must use it.

                      Second, the top mail.google.com page exists for the specific purpose of letting the user log in, so having another link to follow before logging in would achieve nothing useful. Contrast this with the Wikipedia pages -- most of the time, you are on one of the pages to look up some information. The ability to log in is just one of the available features. so the use of the login link makes sense.

                      Rahul