Is Collections the new Articles?

The hacks above are great but it doesn't change the fact that Articles is one of the "premier" add-ons for Revo - and many either cannot (or would rather not) cut it up and glue it back together again for 2.3. A supported update would be rather nice, not to mention important for the Modx brand (as todd.b and others have mentioned).

+1. Bob's Guides has over 100 posts in Articles and many comments. I hate to think that I won't be able to update to 2.3 without migrating it all.

Quote from: smashingred at Jul 07, 2014, 05:23 PM

We absolutely understand the value of a basic Blog tool. Articles is not abandoned, by the way. JP has decided he doesn't want to be the one to manage it as it's not a tool he'd use. There are other folks who may wish to do so. We've asked for community members to adopt those Extras that were once created and managed by the core team (on their own time).

@Jay. If Articles is not abandoned, it certainly seems to be at least a little lost if this conversation from the Articles Github repository is anything to go by:

jpdevries: May 3 2014
Welcome everyone! Part of the reason I wanted to start a discussion on Articles specifically is it’s roadmap and ownership are fairly up in the air and we’d like to increase community contributions, feedback and testing

eladnova: May 3 2014
Sounds good. Just out of interest why are we not discussing on the official forums?

jpdevries: May 3 2014
I think this is closer to the code and more for contributors and testers. Many threads in the forums on Articles as well. Also more IRC style than a forum thread

jpdevries: May 3 2014
There are topics in here I’d like to discuss, such as depricating Articles all together, that I’d rather not go straight onto the forums with LOL

That was written a couple of months ago. What is the current status? Is it deprecated or alive?

Quote from: smashingred at Jul 07, 2014, 05:23 PM

JP has decided he doesn't want to be the one to manage it as it's not a tool he'd use.

To speak for myself, I disagree. I still use Articles on several sites, including my own. As a full time team member, I led integration of several extras including Articles. On May 5th I was removed from the modxcms GitHub team and lost the responsibility as well as the ability to integrate software on MODX LLC's behalf.

Articles isn't out of a lead integrator because of decisions JP made but rather decisions the LLC made. If Articles is officially distributed by the LLC it seems inappropriate to pass the buck elsewhere.

jpdevries: May 3 2014
Welcome everyone! Part of the reason I wanted to start a discussion on Articles specifically is it’s roadmap and ownership are fairly up in the air and we’d like to increase community contributions, feedback and testing

eladnova: May 3 2014
Sounds good. Just out of interest why are we not discussing on the official forums?

jpdevries: May 3 2014
I think this is closer to the code and more for contributors and testers. Many threads in the forums on Articles as well. Also more IRC style than a forum thread

jpdevries: May 3 2014
There are topics in here I’d like to discuss, such as depricating Articles all together, that I’d rather not go straight onto the forums with LOL

Regarding the depreciation, I was starting to see a very practical "Articles 2.0" as consisting of a migration path to Collections, rather than continuing in the direction of Articles 1.x. Obviously this would require several things, particularly a migration strategy.

One issue we continued to run into with Articles, is the irony that modArticle extends modResource, yet a modArticle cannot do all the things a modResource can do. For example, if you try to use Freeze URI or set the ContentType of an Article you'll notice assumptions in the UI prevent you from doing so.

Collections takes a different approach, and does not have these limiting assumptions. It also of course does not have the conveniences Articles provides, such as easily managing Blog container settings. To me, how to get the best of both worlds in a MODX fashion is the question at hand. Whether to rebuild Articles, or depreciate it in favor of Collections is something we discussed often. I hoped to increase community contributions with Articles so that even if it is depreciated the community could start their own fork.

If Articles is still broken in 2.3 when 2.3.0-pl is released I'll jump in and release an update that resolves that for the simple reason this addon is too widely used to just fall out of the sky in 2.3. That would harm the 2.3 release.

That said, it really should be adopted by someone that is dedicated to it and has plans for its future.

Quote from: dinocorn at Jul 09, 2014, 10:40 AM

Quote from: smashingred at Jul 07, 2014, 05:23 PM

JP has decided he doesn't want to be the one to manage it as it's not a tool he'd use.

To speak for myself, I disagree. I still use Articles on several sites, including my own. As a full time team member, I led integration of several extras including Articles. On May 5th I was removed from the modxcms GitHub team and lost the responsibility as well as the ability to integrate software on MODX LLC's behalf.

Articles isn't out of a lead integrator because of decisions JP made but rather decisions the LLC made. If Articles is officially distributed by the LLC it seems inappropriate to pass the buck elsewhere.

JP, I am sorry for speaking for you. I wasn't intending to put words in your mouth. I thought I recalled, at one point when seeking maintainers, that you had little interest in maintaining Articles. If you have an interest in maintaining it. I don't see why you can't.

Quote from: smashingred at Jul 09, 2014, 12:12 PM

I thought I recalled, at one point when seeking maintainers, that you had little interest in maintaining Articles. If you have an interest in maintaining it. I don't see why you can't.

Admittedly I had little interest in maintaining several of the adopted add-ons but I think we were in agreement it was something the LLC should try and do. I maintained those add-ons as a staff member and currently cannot dedicate cycles to maintaining them as a contributor.
http://forums.modx.com/thread/87402/announcing-adopted-add-ons

Quote from: markh at Jul 09, 2014, 11:34 AM

t really should be adopted by someone that is dedicated to it and has plans for its future.

Would the crowd-funding model for some of these Extras be a good way to accelerate their development?

Imagine either:

• a reworked version of Articles
• Discuss V2
• and Extra "X"

weren't getting the attention they needed. Maybe they require a few days to implement a feature. Maybe they require reworking from the ground up.

If the cost of was known to be approx. 3,000 Euro and there was a party interested in delivering the work then there may be an opportunity to ask all those interested in using the updated Extra to pitch in, say, 50 Euro?

The figures are just examples and the actual process would need to be thought out but it's something worth getting feedback on.

Alternatively, a reworked or improved Extra could have a Sponsor whereby an Agency pays 50 to 100% of the cost of the development.

We're open to any model for getting more and higher quality OS Extras. There is no need for MODX to "own" the Extras. If someone wants to provide and estimate and become the integrator for the Extra and run a acceleration crowdfunding campaign, that works. No permission required IMO, if the person who is integrator is running it.