[eluser]esra[/eluser]
[quote author="llbbl" date="1194589959"]I don't know how far along Elliot's project is. Also I am not so sure why people really need a CMS in the first place. CI already has the tools to build a site with. Isn't making a CMS out of it a mute point? I mean I guess for the times when your not getting paid to make a site, and you don't really give a crap, it might be nice.
I am wondering what are the stated project goals. How is going to be better than the current champion, Drupal?[/quote]
The thread author wants to build a CMS based on CI. Most of us know this is possible. However, a CMS is a Content Management System. Most CMS applications (including Drupal, Joomla, Mambo, Postnuke, Xaraya, etc.) are actually built on top of a portal-like framework. The portal itself should be thought of as a foundation for building applications on top of a low-level framework like CI. The major distinction between the portal extensions and framework are the development on a base set of reusable modules that are common among most application types. A portal (what most people refer to as a CMS) could be used to build any kind of application. Supporting Content could be handled using a single Admin module and multiple frontend modules (e.g., blog, article, news, faq, tutorial, etc.).
For a portal, using Modular Separation gives MVC much better encapsulation and more controllable decoupling of application modules. This is an area where MVC 2 is sadly lacking largely because of Sun's Model 2 (MVC 2) implmentation of MVC. The original SmallTalk MVC framework was designed for a typed language where something like dynamic link libraries could be used to create module-like entities.