[kaffe-siteadmin] Shining up the website

[Kristian Rasmussen]

Okay, so I just continue making the site, PHP-based?

And were there any new features you guys would like (news system, forum etc.)?

/Kristian

On 10/19/05, Jim Pick <jim at kaffe.org> wrote:
> I'm willing to go with whatever the volunteer wants to do.  :-)
>
> Yeah, most CMS's I've seen are PHP based, although there are Java ones
> out there as well.  I briefly looked at a couple, but they all seemed a
> bit overkill.
>
> Here's a proposal -- we could have a front end running a reverse-proxy
> to handle the initial HTTP request (eg. I've used Apache to do this in
> the past), and then just map parts of the namespace to various secondary
> web servers.
>
> The main set of web pages could be implemented using PHP or whatever you
> want to use.
>
> I'd like to play around with setting up a Java-based wiki and some other
> things.  Those things could be mapped into the kaffe.org namespace using
>   the reverse proxy.
>
> We could easily run different web servers in different Xen sessions (or
> on different servers) for each part of the site.  eg.  The web archive
> and mailing lists could have it's own dedicated virtual server.
>
> Sound good?
>
> Cheers,
>
>   - Jim
>
> Kristian Rasmussen wrote:
> > On 10/18/05, Jim Pick <jim at kaffe.org> wrote:
> >
> >>Server-wise, I'd like to set it up in a Xen session.  I've got lots of
> >>space on my new server.
> >
> > Sounds great.
> >
> >
> >>The only comment I have about using PHP is just that we won't be able to
> >>run the website on Kaffe (eg. using Tomcat or some other web server).  I
> >>  always thought it would be sort of cool if the project was self-hosting.
> >
> > Yeah, I can see that. Is there no way to make PHP run on Tomcat or the like?
> >
> >
> >>What do you think about using some sort of a CMS?  Or do you prefer
> >>static web pages?
> >
> > Well, most CMS-systems are based on PHP, so that's results in the
> > same. We could try something that runs on Python or Perl, but I don't
> > really know if they're mature enough yet?
> >
> > The main thing is that things get more complicated when I have to deal
> > with foreign (and often complex) code. Especially will the design
> > often become hard to control. CMS's often have many features we don't
> > need, and they have to be stripped for the website not to get bloated
> > and with many unused and irrelevant sections.
> >
> > Therefore, I usually make my own little CMS, that lets people control
> > the content of the pages and nothing more. I usually then store the
> > content in a MySQL/PGSQL-database. For "users", a textarea is usually
> > better than files they have to handle themselves. In this case, since
> > you guys are geeks, I figured it would be better for you to edit the
> > files yourselves, as you always have done.
> >
> > I see two choices:
> > 1. Make the server run PHP
> > 2. Base it on Perl, Python (i do neither) or just SSI as before
> >
> > Also, i'd like to know if there are any other things we would use
> > something dynamic (based on PHP or something other server-side) for,
> > except the includes for the site structure? Like a forum, a
> > news-system or a calendar?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Kristian
> >
> >
> >>Cheers,
> >>
> >>  - Jim
> >>
> >>Kristian Rasmussen wrote:
> >>
> >>>Hi all,
> >>>
> >>>A while ago, i started talking with dalibor on IRC about how I could
> >>>contribute. Dalibor said that the website could use a new design and a
> >>>proper codebase. Since I'm a web person and, besides that, a
> >>>non-programmer, I took the job. I've only recently begun working on
> >>>it.
> >>>
> >>>Here's the plan, as currently imagined in my head and as discussed with dalibor:
> >>>*Make a new codebase (proper code, strict xhtml) on the same design
> >>>with easily changeable design (i. e. html that lets css control the
> >>>design)
> >>>*Make a new design, which hopefully then will be easily changeable
> >>>
> >>>Now, here comes the slightly more controversial part: My plan is to
> >>>base it on PHP, so as to get some more flexibility and some fewer
> >>>bytes. Also, it's what I'm used to working in.
> >>>
> >>>More specifically, to replace the current SSI-include system, I'm
> >>>going to let each page be included in the index.
> >>>
> >>>Does anyone have any objections against that? And what's the
> >>>situation, server-wise?
> >>>
> >>>/Kristian Rasmussen
> >>>
> >>>--
> >>>
> >>>Free Software Foundation associate member #3080
> >>>Protect your freedom by joining:
> >>>http://member.fsf.org/
> >>>
> >>>_______________________________________________
> >>>kaffe-siteadmin mailing list
> >>>kaffe-siteadmin at kaffe.org
> >>>http://kaffe.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kaffe-siteadmin
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Free Software Foundation associate member #3080
> > Protect your freedom by joining:
> > http://member.fsf.org/
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > kaffe-siteadmin mailing list
> > kaffe-siteadmin at kaffe.org
> > http://kaffe.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kaffe-siteadmin
>
>


--

Free Software Foundation associate member #3080
Protect your freedom by joining:
http://member.fsf.org/