eeeno wrote:Google makes you sound like you didn't like the idea because "if it isn't broken, don't fix it".
Probably google translate is a bit overcharged, when it comes to translate Winni's posts.
snafu wrote:Was ihr jetzt versucht ist Flickschusterei. Ein neues Datenmodell, bei dem wohl auch die meisten Plugins gesprengt werden und dann trotzdem krampfhaft an der Dateibasierung festzuhalten? Das macht nicht wirklich Sinn!
Translation:
What you're trying now is tinkering. A new data model, which will blow probably many plugins---but still frantically sticking with flat file storage? That really doesn't make much sense!
I have to agree. AISB: in the long run I'm hoping for a cleaner API (e.g. the mentioned getters and setters), which would make it
possible to provide alternative storage models. But we shouldn't rush into that.
eeeno wrote:I don't care much for the plugins as they may contain many more suprises than the cms itself, of course i could make my own plugins. Not everyone can do that, i agree.
That's exactly the point. I would even say: "most users and webdesigners can't write their own plugins, and even those who could, may not have the time."
snafu wrote:Entschuldige diese sprachliche Ungenauigkeit, da ich hier im cmsimple_XH Forum schreibe und es um zukünftige _xh Versionen geht, ging ich einfach davon aus, das es klar ist, das ich damit das community projekt cmsimple_XH und nicht die cmsimple v4 gemeint habe.
Well, it's always possible, that some ideas that are discussed here, might make it to other variants of CMSimple than CMSimple_XH.
snafu wrote:Es gibt halt keine eierlegende Wollmilchsau, die zu realisieren wird auch nicht funktionieren.
I agree. "Use the right tool for the job at hand". But suggested improvements should always be considered by carefully weighing the pros and cons. Otherwise a good opportunity to improve the system may be easily missed. "Stagnation is regression", particularly when it comes to IT.
eeeno wrote:Cmsimple is flawed by "read everything" at one array design at every single request.
IMO CMSimple has more severe flaws, particularly regarding the plugin handling. These may be addressed first.
eeeno wrote:Well and for me if this never makes into the official version, i'm just better off using the modified slicker core.
You may consider sticking with standard CMSimple_XH, unless actual performance issues arise, in which case you can still switch to an optimized version. And of course the decision, if and when this optimization will be included in CMSimple_XH, is not made. I'm just one of the developers; the others may have quite different opinions.