Comments for Technology of Content http://blog.technologyofcontent.com Ramblings on the technology of content management Tue, 23 Feb 2010 04:14:37 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 Comment on NoSQL and content management by justin http://blog.technologyofcontent.com/2010/02/nosql-and-content-management/comment-page-1/#comment-4713 justin Tue, 23 Feb 2010 04:14:37 +0000 http://blog.technologyofcontent.com/?p=216#comment-4713 <p><a href="#comment-4695" rel="nofollow">@Matt Hamilton:</a> Thanks for reminding me - had forgotten that Zope had done that while I write this while I was writing this. It has always been an interesting framework.</p> @Matt Hamilton: Thanks for reminding me – had forgotten that Zope had done that while I write this while I was writing this. It has always been an interesting framework.

]]> Comment on NoSQL and content management by Matt Hamilton http://blog.technologyofcontent.com/2010/02/nosql-and-content-management/comment-page-1/#comment-4695 Matt Hamilton Mon, 22 Feb 2010 08:01:41 +0000 http://blog.technologyofcontent.com/?p=216#comment-4695 <p>One CMS system worth mentioning here is Plone. It is built upon Zope, which has been doing NoSQL for over a decade now.</p> <p>Plone sort of fits between points 3 and 4 above in your article. The ZODB is a persistent object store which natively stores objects (ie no need for an ORM). It is transactional, had MVCC and can be easily clustered.</p> <p>Plone has a couple of content type systems. Archetypes is the older one with a richer set of widgets. You can draw up a whole information model in a UML editor and get it converted into a set of installable content types, complete with all relations and containment heirarchy.</p> <p>Dexterity is the new content type system and socked the problem that CCK and most other systems have of being unable to easily switch from a web based point and click method for building types and creating them in code on the filesystem (so they can be versioned in your VCS).</p> <p>-Matt</p> One CMS system worth mentioning here is Plone. It is built upon Zope, which has been doing NoSQL for over a decade now.

Plone sort of fits between points 3 and 4 above in your article. The ZODB is a persistent object store which natively stores objects (ie no need for an ORM). It is transactional, had MVCC and can be easily clustered.

Plone has a couple of content type systems. Archetypes is the older one with a richer set of widgets. You can draw up a whole information model in a UML editor and get it converted into a set of installable content types, complete with all relations and containment heirarchy.

Dexterity is the new content type system and socked the problem that CCK and most other systems have of being unable to easily switch from a web based point and click method for building types and creating them in code on the filesystem (so they can be versioned in your VCS).

-Matt

]]> Comment on NoSQL and content management by NoSQL and content management – Technology of Content | Drakz Free Online Service http://blog.technologyofcontent.com/2010/02/nosql-and-content-management/comment-page-1/#comment-4538 NoSQL and content management – Technology of Content | Drakz Free Online Service Mon, 15 Feb 2010 17:40:02 +0000 http://blog.technologyofcontent.com/?p=216#comment-4538 <p>[...] from: NoSQL and content management – Technology of Content Share and [...]</p> [...] from: NoSQL and content management – Technology of Content Share and [...]

]]> Comment on NoSQL and content management by NoSQL and content management – Technology of Content | Drakz Free Online Service http://blog.technologyofcontent.com/2010/02/nosql-and-content-management/comment-page-1/#comment-4535 NoSQL and content management – Technology of Content | Drakz Free Online Service Mon, 15 Feb 2010 15:44:14 +0000 http://blog.technologyofcontent.com/?p=216#comment-4535 <p>[...] NoSQL and content management – Technology of Content Share and [...]</p> [...] NoSQL and content management – Technology of Content Share and [...]

]]> Comment on NoSQL and content management by Michael Kowalski http://blog.technologyofcontent.com/2010/02/nosql-and-content-management/comment-page-1/#comment-4534 Michael Kowalski Mon, 15 Feb 2010 14:40:56 +0000 http://blog.technologyofcontent.com/?p=216#comment-4534 <p>I've been puzzling over this stuff a lot recently as well, and this is a better analysis of the pros and cons than I could have managed. The attractions of moving to a model that maps more closely to the content management domain are obvious. You hit the nail on the head with this line though: "the sweet spot in a few years once the products mature".</p> I’ve been puzzling over this stuff a lot recently as well, and this is a better analysis of the pros and cons than I could have managed. The attractions of moving to a model that maps more closely to the content management domain are obvious. You hit the nail on the head with this line though: “the sweet spot in a few years once the products mature”.

]]> Comment on NoSQL and content management by Most Tweeted Articles by Distributed Systems Experts: MrTweet http://blog.technologyofcontent.com/2010/02/nosql-and-content-management/comment-page-1/#comment-4525 Most Tweeted Articles by Distributed Systems Experts: MrTweet Mon, 15 Feb 2010 11:02:22 +0000 http://blog.technologyofcontent.com/?p=216#comment-4525 <p><strong>Your article was most tweeted by Distributed Systems experts in the Twitterverse...</strong></p> <p>Come see other top popular articles surfaced by Distributed Systems experts!...</p> Your article was most tweeted by Distributed Systems experts in the Twitterverse…

Come see other top popular articles surfaced by Distributed Systems experts!…

]]> Comment on NoSQL and content management by uberVU - social comments http://blog.technologyofcontent.com/2010/02/nosql-and-content-management/comment-page-1/#comment-4508 uberVU - social comments Mon, 15 Feb 2010 00:53:31 +0000 http://blog.technologyofcontent.com/?p=216#comment-4508 <p><strong>Social comments and analytics for this post...</strong></p> <p>This post was mentioned on Twitter by justincormack: writeup of thoughts on #nosql and #cms data models after #fosdem talks http://bit.ly/dBVeJr...</p> Social comments and analytics for this post…

This post was mentioned on Twitter by justincormack: writeup of thoughts on #nosql and #cms data models after #fosdem talks http://bit.ly/dBVeJr...

]]> Comment on JSON vs XML by Peter http://blog.technologyofcontent.com/2010/01/json-vs-xml/comment-page-1/#comment-4377 Peter Tue, 09 Feb 2010 22:36:19 +0000 http://blog.technologyofcontent.com/?p=206#comment-4377 <p><a href="#comment-4287" rel="nofollow">@dret:</a> I'm not proposing getting rid of attributes from the literal XML text, just making them syntactic sugar for single-valued elements in the processing model (ie. so that my code doesn't have to look like a dog's breakfast whenever I have to do deal with XML that contains both data-as-attribute-values and data-as-element-values).</p> <p>More generally, if Justin's post is intended to foster discussion on what an "XML++" might look like, then I think a new kind of XML "that wouldn't be XML anymore" is absolutely on the table - his namespace simplification straw man being a good example.</p> @dret: I’m not proposing getting rid of attributes from the literal XML text, just making them syntactic sugar for single-valued elements in the processing model (ie. so that my code doesn’t have to look like a dog’s breakfast whenever I have to do deal with XML that contains both data-as-attribute-values and data-as-element-values).

More generally, if Justin’s post is intended to foster discussion on what an “XML++” might look like, then I think a new kind of XML “that wouldn’t be XML anymore” is absolutely on the table – his namespace simplification straw man being a good example.

]]> Comment on JSON vs XML by dret http://blog.technologyofcontent.com/2010/01/json-vs-xml/comment-page-1/#comment-4287 dret Sun, 07 Feb 2010 02:19:20 +0000 http://blog.technologyofcontent.com/?p=206#comment-4287 <p>@peter: many have proposed to get rid of attributes. for data-oriented people, this makes a lot of sense. for document-oriented people, this is just inconceivable. try to think of an HTML without attributes; not very pretty, right? plus, some essential XML mechanics (most notably, namespaces) depend on attributes, and i don't even want to think what namespaces would look like if they had to be stuffed into elements. it's nice that some technologies (such as RELAX NG) try to mitigate the distinction where appropriate, but these things are different in many ways, and XML without attributes probably would be different enough from XML so that it wouldn't be XML anymore.</p> @peter: many have proposed to get rid of attributes. for data-oriented people, this makes a lot of sense. for document-oriented people, this is just inconceivable. try to think of an HTML without attributes; not very pretty, right? plus, some essential XML mechanics (most notably, namespaces) depend on attributes, and i don’t even want to think what namespaces would look like if they had to be stuffed into elements. it’s nice that some technologies (such as RELAX NG) try to mitigate the distinction where appropriate, but these things are different in many ways, and XML without attributes probably would be different enough from XML so that it wouldn’t be XML anymore.

]]> Comment on JSON vs XML by Most Tweeted Articles by CMS Experts: MrTweet http://blog.technologyofcontent.com/2010/01/json-vs-xml/comment-page-1/#comment-3932 Most Tweeted Articles by CMS Experts: MrTweet Fri, 29 Jan 2010 10:09:50 +0000 http://blog.technologyofcontent.com/?p=206#comment-3932 <p><strong>Your article was most tweeted by CMS experts in the Twitterverse...</strong></p> <p>Come see other top popular articles surfaced by CMS experts!...</p> Your article was most tweeted by CMS experts in the Twitterverse…

Come see other top popular articles surfaced by CMS experts!…

]]>