Mailing-List: contact dev-help@forrest.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@forrest.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (hermes.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <4266A7A8.1020602@apache.org>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 20:04:08 +0100
From: Ross Gardler <rgardler@apache.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@forrest.apache.org
Subject: Re: Lenya and forrest integration
References: <1113985936.4732.32.camel@localhost> <4266A26D.3010303@apache.org>
In-Reply-To: <4266A26D.3010303@apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Gregor J. Rothfuss wrote:
> Thorsten Scherler wrote:

...

>> What do both projects think which one should become the main app (lenya
>> or forrest)?
> 
> 
> that's a funny question :)
> 
> afaik forrest has no workflow, user management etc, so if you need 
> those, the answer would be pretty clear.

I think the question is "should  Lenya become a Forrest plugin or 
vice-versa". This is an important question because whichever is the 
"main app" would have the ability to override functionality of the other.

For my case I chose for the CMS to run separately from the publication 
engine (Forrest) and only integrate at the publication level. This makes 
the CMS a plugin for Forrest.  The advantage of this way around is that 
it allows multiple CMS systems to provide content for multiple Forrest 
based sites.

On the other hand, if Forrest is embedded into Lenya as a presentation 
engine I suspect you would only be able to use a single instance of 
Lenya as a source for content. Whether this is a disadvantage or not 
depends on the use case, for my own it is a problem.

Ross