Michael Homeijer wrote:
>
> I think the CMS should support the following seperation:
>
> [frontend] - [CMS(1)] <- promotion <- [CMS(2)] - [backend]
> | |
> [store] [store]
>
> In this picture CMS(1) is optimized for publishing/speed and CMS(2) is
> optimized for workflow, version mgmt and versioning.
>
> Does this make sense for your KMS?
well, this is a good question :)
but I think it's too early to tell. I mean: yours sounds more as an
implementation detail because I could refactor your diagram as
+---------------------------------+
[frontend] - |[CMS(1)] <- promotion <- [CMS(2)]| - [backend]
+---------------------------------+
|
+---------------------+
|[store(1)] [store(2)]|
+---------------------+
then substitute
[CMS] := [CMS(1)] <- promotion <- [CMS(2)]
[store] := [store(1)] [store(2)]
and get again
[frontend] - [ CMS ] - [backend]
|
[store]
Note that this is *very* high level. By unifying the two stores, I'm not
saying that they must reside in the same software or even in the same
machine or network.
This is just a study of the 'concern islands' which is much more
abstract than any implementation detail, but I thank you for your
comments since it's good to have a clear vision of the possible
implementation issues even at this very high level stage.
--
Stefano Mazzocchi One must still have chaos in oneself to be
able to give birth to a dancing star.
<stefano@apache.org> Friedrich Nietzsche
--------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: cocoon-dev-unsubscribe@xml.apache.org
For additional commands, email: cocoon-dev-help@xml.apache.org
|