The Joomla! Forum ™

http://forum.mamboserver.com/showthread.php?t=63901

Can someone explain what this is about, and what it means please?

_________________
Co-author of the Official Joomla! Book http://officialjoomlabook.com
Marpo Multimedia http://marpomultimedia.com

I take it as this:

"We are scared sh**less that you already have 4 releases and the only thing we put out was a sorry excuse for an alpha that was basically what you guys wrote with a bunch of broken additions. Since you guys acutally know this code is there anything you can do to help us?"

Maybe that's just the cynic in me... 

_________________
Doyle Lewis
BuyHTTP Internet Services
http://www.buyhttp.com/joomla_hosting.html - No Overselling Guarantee. Your Joomla site, faster.
http://www.joomlademo.com - Joomla flash tutorials.

THat is not at all what the post is about, Doyle.
It is only about interfacing both core APIs with 3PD components.
And that would be the best thing that could happen, if it would.
Why?
Because right now, after just a few core updates (no major new features yet, not including just released alpha), many many CMTs are broken in Joomla.
On the french support forums, there are daily questions about "component X or Y used to work fine with Mambo 452 and now stopped working after moving to Joomla"! We even have a forum dedicated to those components NOT working anymore with Joomla, or needing fixes: http://www.mambofacile.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=63 and you can find just the same on the German forums.
The wealth of good quality CMTs available is/was one of the reasons for many users to select Mambo for their websites. Now, more and more of our users are starting to go back to Mambo after trying Joomla, because their CMTs do not work anymore because of core code changes! If there is nothing done very soon to fix many of the current problems, many of our users will indeed migrate back to Mambo, as they openly announced. Now, it is easy to say "everyone is free to choose", but that would just be hiding the real problem..

_________________
Sometimes one pays most for the things one gets for nothing.
The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. AE
http://joomla15.blog spot.com for J! 1.5 screenshots
http://www.eyezberg.com

Are mambo => joomla components really creating a problem?

I don't speak french but I noticed on the board that most of those components are being re-released or a have a simple patch for Joomla: TFSforMambo => TFSforJoomla / PHPShop => VirtueMart, off the top of my head.

I run plenty of the more popular Mambo components on Joomla! without a problem, if there was one I could find a fix here in the forum.

I don't understand why there would be a problem.

Aren't there developers that have chosen to work with Joomla and those that have decided to continue on developing for Mambo?

I just don't understand the whole point behind the open letter.  It seems almost a fake gesture to me because of all the flack that has been givent to Joomla users on the forum,... Now they want to play nicey nice?

I don't get it.  What is the use of the Dev teams continuing on with two products, if in reality it is just going to be one product -two names?

_________________
Co-author of the Official Joomla! Book http://officialjoomlabook.com
Marpo Multimedia http://marpomultimedia.com

They just seem so shady.  The core devs are professionals with integrity so you know they didn't burn bridges when they split.  I don't know the polotics behind this, but my intuition says that the foundation would like to exploit that integrity "for the betterment of the open souce and open standards that we are trying to put in a box" or whatever their language is.

It sounds like a mixture of



and ....

You guys should be scared, we're going to change ?ambo so that dev's have to build for you OR us, but not both ..... oh, and you're already stuffing up stuff like that anyway.


Either way you want to read it, there's definitely a hidden message - I just can't figure out what.

Joel,

quite a few of the components on this list are quoted as "solved" or have to be at reading the post (on a list of 8...).
And not small ones : Mambelfish, PHPShop
I just wrote to hornos to ask him to keep this small list up-to-date.

I believe you are slightly on the border line here with a wrong demonstration.

We will soon see if your statement about "more and more of our users switch back" has any value when 1.1 is released.
For the moment, I just see this guy lerouxjul who is not happy and state this. I just answered to him in the thread he opened there: the overlib bot he is complaining does work! I just tested it. And it was released in November 2004 for 4.5.1....

There are still some people around, as far as I know, who keep using 4.5 version because of the same supposed problem, taking into account a simple philosophy: what does work for you does not have to be changed just because a change is available. And this is fine. It does not mean that development has to be stopped and no progress done.

There are more than 450 projects open on Joomlaforge as of today.

Anyhow this "Open Letter" is an other matter altogether... as other users have righfully stated here.

_________________
Jean-Marie Simonet / infograf · http://www.info-graf.fr · GMT +1
Multilanguage in 1.7: http://help.joomla.org/files/EN-GB_mult ... torial.pdf
---------------------------------
Joomla Translation Coordination Team • Joomla! Production Working Group

This is off topic for this thread, but I suggest you lobby the authors to fix the problems and the authors can then lobby us if they have any issues.  As always, we need more information to fix the problem if it exists.

_________________
Andrew Eddie - Tweet @AndrewEddie
<><
http://learn.theartofjoomla.com - Joomla 1.6 training videos!
http://www.kiva.org/team/joomla - Got Joomla for free? Pay it forward and help fight poverty.

From Mr. Brampton's open letter on the Mambo forum:



Aside from whatever energy a "collaboration" with Miro/foundation folks might involve at this point, would there still be benefit in some open conversation about standards?

Of course, I'd like to see the third party developers invited to such a conversation, too. I'm guessing the Community Builder RC2 folks would have some ideas about developer interface standards, for example. Maybe Mr. Brampton would like to start a thread on Joomla forums, and start with an outline of ideas?  Would he be welcome to do that? I'm guessing he would.

My main concern about a Miro/foundation Mambo collaboration would be that I don't want distractions from Joomla core development or Joomla third party development.  I'm looking forward to moving down the Joomla roadmap sooner rather than later, and wouldn't want to add any unnecessary or unwelcome burden -- or delay. I acknowledge that all of my sites have been upgraded to Joomla 1.03, but I still use cross-compatible third party tools.

I visited the old site.  In it they published an open letter to Andrew asking for collaboration for "sharing information about security issues that are liable to affect both projects."

My read on it is that they really do not know what they're doing and where they're going.  So, in the guise of "collaboration," they're asking to consolidate the efforts of both camps for the sake of the "community."  In the end, I think that as soon as the new core dev of the other guys get their acts together, they'll drop this collaboration because "we don't need you (Joomla!) anymore.  Thanks and goodbye."

Not to fan the fire, but I think this is a win-win for them, and a lose-lose for Joomla.  Which leads me to question, if they're so much into the "security," why not also ask PHPNuke, Xoops, and the other CMSs for a collaboration?

But, Andrew and the rest of the core dev, your decision on how to approach their proposal -- to collaborate or not -- would affect the community greatly.

Which way are we going?  (My thought:  please say "no."  They were the ones who screwed up.  Let them reap the consequence.)

(On the same breadth, I feel like a free loader.  Am still waiting for ways to contribute.  I cannot by means of programming, but financial, maybe?  Am more than willing to carry my own weight.)

_________________
~ A little imagination can go a long way ~
online at http:/francosantos.com, http://clinicalpsychotherapists.com, http://modernfamilyliving.com

wow! I posted the above.  looked at some other postings and then thought, hmmm... let me read what I posted.  Then, it was gone.  I thought, oh no, joomla did not turn into "them"!!!  hehe, obviously not.  My post was just moved.  Good pickup, admin!

_________________
~ A little imagination can go a long way ~
online at http:/francosantos.com, http://clinicalpsychotherapists.com, http://modernfamilyliving.com

Same letter is now here in the Joomla fourms.

Collaborative discussions
http://forum.joomla.org/http://phpbb.jo ... 446#p94446

_________________
██ AllMedia4Joomla Project
██ http://sourceforge.net/projects/allmedia4joomla/

cool!  after 5 cans of beer, i may be reading it wrong, but I saw a big middle finger there somewhere.  (you may edit as you wish)

_________________
~ A little imagination can go a long way ~
online at http:/francosantos.com, http://clinicalpsychotherapists.com, http://modernfamilyliving.com

No, when I flip-off someone - they know it. 

Martin Brampton is the current developer of ReMOSitory.
http://www.remository.com/

Looks like he has a new job.   . . . and is extending the olive branch.

Actually, any encouraging of standards for 3PDs is good for all of us.

_________________
██ AllMedia4Joomla Project
██ http://sourceforge.net/projects/allmedia4joomla/

Jean Marie,
I am not demonstrating anything, just reporting what I read. Don't shoot the messenger. The dedicated forum on the french support site is just one of the many places you will find numerous posts about the first releases having broken many exisiting CMTs which worked in Mambo 452. This is a fact, and people coming up with fixes, and 3PD components not being Core and thus not under Core devs responsability, is not an excuse. "The first releases were supposed to be fixes and rebranding, so shouldn't have introduced any such changes"... this is a quote from someone else's post.
Just so you know exactly, here's some other quotes:
and and and these excerpts are from 4 different users, unmodified, and I guess they speak for themselves (you will be able to render their meaning to other interested Core devs..).
As you can see, I was not posting this on my own behalf (if I thought so, I would not be posting here, but on mamboserver..), and quite a few users are very reserved about what happened to some of their sites when they tried to update.. (there's more posts about problems in the respective upgrade/update forums..).
Of course, all new users coming to Joomla today will be happy to find all those extensions on Joomlaforge, and not be faced with the problems older Mambo users with existing sites are experiencing -if they feel they want to switch to Joomla.

Andrew,
I don't want to lobby any 3PD, I do not use most of the problematic CMTs, and the ones I use still run fine under Mambo 452. I have stopped any dev' with either Mambo or Joomla, I still participate some in the french community and very little here; all I was doing in my post is reporting what some of the mambo/joomlafacile users are unhappy and concerned about: 2 communities with incompatible code = number of CMTs divided by 2, and some they are used to not available anymore if the dev' so decides and or the respective Core code changes too much.. There wouldn't be any 3PD CMTs without the Core, but the Core without all the CMTs would not be as valuable as it is..

Why does everyone read stuff into posts which simply isn't there (includes the one this thread is about)..? Keep to the post.

_________________
Sometimes one pays most for the things one gets for nothing.
The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. AE
http://joomla15.blog spot.com for J! 1.5 screenshots
http://www.eyezberg.com

I would then ask why everyone that has a problem with a third party component immediately blames us

If you have a problem with a third party component here is the procedure:
* don't speak for others, let's get information from the source please (unless you are translating)
* check your configuration, maybe you've done something silly
* talk to the author first, maybe they've done something silly
* when an "author" identifies that their component has broken because of a core change, they should log a bug or talk to us

Please investigate things before making sweeping statements like "the core code changes to much".  I can appreciate if users find things are breaking, but it's equally frustrating for us not to get enough of the correct information.  As you point out, Joomla! works best as a two-way street.

_________________
Andrew Eddie - Tweet @AndrewEddie
<><
http://learn.theartofjoomla.com - Joomla 1.6 training videos!
http://www.kiva.org/team/joomla - Got Joomla for free? Pay it forward and help fight poverty.

I reiterate my statement: I am just relaying what was posted.. I don't know exactly which components are causing the main grief, apart from those showing up in various threads, I don't use all of them either.
The main point I always see coming up is "it used to work before I upgraded, and nothing else was changed"..

I am not in a position to relay all precise info into the tracker here though, if the users, due to language or other barriers don't do it themselves, I can and will not do it for them. I can let you folks know about a general feeling if it seems to be getting more and more common.. "translating" the general message. What you then do (or not) with this message, simply refute it or give it some thought, is all up to you.

_________________
Sometimes one pays most for the things one gets for nothing.
The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. AE
http://joomla15.blog spot.com for J! 1.5 screenshots
http://www.eyezberg.com

Kinda tough to respond to your allegations/assumptions.  It lacks details.  I guess that's why "hearsay" is not accepted in court.  It's because "well, he or she said this and that, but ..." the fact is, since it's someone else, no one really knows what transpired.

Speaking for myself, I have not had any problems whatsoever (except for the new release of Virtuemart, but that is a different matter and Virtuemart is taking care of the problem).  But, I have seen people have problems with mambo and joomla! along with 3PDs that are supposed to be stable.  The forums both there and here are replete with requests for help.  But, more often than not, it's just a configuration/server/local computer matter.  But then, I'm guilty of speaking for others.  So, those who are having problems, let them speak for themselves. 

_________________
~ A little imagination can go a long way ~
online at http:/francosantos.com, http://clinicalpsychotherapists.com, http://modernfamilyliving.com

OK, I think the relative points have been made on the 3rd party stuff.  Let's move on.

_________________
Andrew Eddie - Tweet @AndrewEddie
<><
http://learn.theartofjoomla.com - Joomla 1.6 training videos!
http://www.kiva.org/team/joomla - Got Joomla for free? Pay it forward and help fight poverty.

Another significant (and maybe unforseen on Martin's part) issue is the way WCAG is going to be addressed in J! as compared to Mambo (though it looks like it's totally off the roadmap for 4.5.3 now)

The Usability and Accessibility team is looking at the way CMTB work is designed and how that affects J!. Part of that involves finding the appropriate level of functionality so as to give the template designers freedom to correctly design templates according to semantic principles, as well as providing some model of structure and coding, in step with the 3PD team, so as to train and deliver well formed components, modules and bots. Collaboration between J! and Mambo might be significantly harder than expected in this respect.

This is a seperate issue than the "When I upgrade / cross-grade my components no longer work" thing.

This comes down to which standards matter so even if Team Mambo want to engage in open standards, there obviously has to be some agreement on just which standards are being followed and which standards are being ignored.

(Please excuse the rambling nature of this post.. The more I think about what's been said, the more I can see where it has the potential to go wrong)

_________________
Design with integrity : Web accessible solutions
http://www.absalom.biz
http://twitter.com/absalomedia

Crazy topic

First, I think you take eyezberg wrong. He is not accusing or raving about Joomla and its abilities regarding third party. He just states repeatingly read comments others did. In fact, this is a good thing to do, if those statements are not brought to the team by these people themselves. If one doesn't hear about it, one does not know about it. So, all he says, there seem to be problems with using third party solutions, which might or rmight not need attention, which might or might not be because of difficulties with the way of integrating extensions.

To the 3PD standard issue: in my opinion this is a good idea. Joomla is an open source project and has nothing to lose by committing to a standard for third-party integration. As I understand, the outcome of standardization would be an API supported by the CMS where third-party developers can code against. The API covering management, administration, and runtime issues.
To me, this sounds great, but only can be a long term goal. Shouldn't go into V1, but maybe into V2 of Joomla. And it should not only have Joomla and Mambo on board (otherwise it is not much of a standard, is it?), but third-party developers and other CMSs/Siteservers.

_________________
°°°°'°°°°
"All you need is Bytes" (Bitles, 2368)

So which standards does the API cover ?

ISO ? W3C ? WCAG ? PHP security ? How to write good code for J!/Mambo ?

How big is the ballpark if we are to have a collaborative API working across multiple CMS systems?

Not to mention that J! is looking to go down the WCAG compliance path as part of it's roadmap, and the new 4.5.3 roadmap no longer includes such specifications. So there are already looking to be fundamental differences in the way each core package will be handling CMTB work.

_________________
Design with integrity : Web accessible solutions
http://www.absalom.biz
http://twitter.com/absalomedia

Wonder, what your problem with it might be. The "what" would be up to those who talk about a standardization as would the "how". It might be simple or difficult or impossible to agree on a common API. As I said, it's a long term issue and it's not about specific CMSs, nor is it about existing standards to be covered (which you can never force others to comply to).

_________________
°°°°'°°°°
"All you need is Bytes" (Bitles, 2368)

In the light of the responses, I'm not going to say very much.  But I think it best to say a few things.  Just for the record, the Mambo development team is not in the least scared and has a very full programme of development.  We will be progressively making announcements as we firm up our plans.  The only reason for reticence is to ensure that we have thought them through properly before we start to raise expectations. 

It is also worth recording that the original letter was not designed to do anything that cannot be read plainly from what it says.  The sole reason for publishing it was to limit the extent to which it could be misrepresented.  My colleagues and I are not looking for arguments or problems, we are getting on with our projects in the best ways we can.  But, as the letter said, we are open to collaboration, and certainly have an interest in pursuing similar ideas with other CMS products.

To add flesh to the original letter, I will cite the example I gave in the Mambo forums.  At present, there is (to the best of my knowledge) no completely standard way for a third party CMT to decide whether the current user is logged in.  The kind of interface standardisation I have in mind is the extension of the mosUser class with a method such as isLogged().  It is a sound general principle of OO that methods are greatly preferable to testing properties.  Far from constraining development by any party, that actually hides the details of implementation while providing a robust interface that should require relatively little change.  Examples can easily be multiplied, but that is a simple concrete illustration of the possibilities.

The Mambo team is willing to live with a split in the 3PD community if that is what emerges.  But we question whether it is in the interests of all the stakeholders to have such a split.

Martin Brampton
Core Team Leader
Mambo Foundation

Hm, maybe I took your proposal wrong? I thought you were aiming at a standard to allow 3PD solutions to be used with any CMS supporting it. What I read here is simply a request to keep the interfaces compatible. If you are a professional and/experienced developer, you should know about the difference. Agreements and collaboration on compatibility is not a topic for an open letter, but direct communication with the development team. Writing an open letter rather appears as if it's a marketing move than a will for collaboration.
Just my humble observing opinion.

_________________
°°°°'°°°°
"All you need is Bytes" (Bitles, 2368)

I am aiming at such a standard, but to make matters clearer, the issues can be illustrated by much smaller steps.  The final goal will only be reached (if it is reached at all) by a long series of small steps.  But you have to make the first one.  Keeping two closely related CMS in step is quite a small goal, but it is a step in a positive direction.

It also seemed necessary to make the point that having standards for interfaces need not constrain development at all, but can actually permit development to be more flexible.  The point is that agreeing standards can be done in terms that do not hold anyone back.  So far as 3PD solutions are concerned, it is plain that interface standards are the critical issue.

Mmmmh, the Mambo-Devs propose to keep a consistent 3PD-Add-On interface for both projects. I'm not sure if its in the interest of the projects to do this. Sure, it would make Add-On development easier, but at one point you have to think about the quality of the project and not about the similar interface. I allways think of the proposed future of the categories/section. When Joomla gets the multi-level categories you can't keep the 3PD interface as it is (at least I think so). Should Joomla wait for Mambo to adopt it to get this often asked for feature? What if its the other way round? If Joomla is behind in a thing, for example ACLs? Neither would tell the other to stop there work cause they want to first catch up to the other one. And even if the productivity of both Dev-Teams are identical, the possibilities that all work on the same problems is below than cracking the jackpot in the lottery...

I don't know if they thought about this to this degree, or if there is another idea behind this, but I would politely reject the offer.

_________________
god doesn't play dice with the universe. not after that drunken night with the devil where he lost classical mechanics in a game of craps.

Since the creation of the Internet, the Earth's rotation has been fueled, primarily, by the collective spinning of English teachers in their graves.

Then what about the rest of the standards that are outside the "interface" ?

Open standards means that a holisitic approach is taken to solve problems, and there is more than just the "interface" between the core and 3PD work that affects how a 3PD package will run.



I'm a little confused here. What are you trying to say ?

_________________
Design with integrity : Web accessible solutions
http://www.absalom.biz
http://twitter.com/absalomedia

I was refering to your questions about what the API would cover, which would be part of the discussions on establishing a standard and not upfront. And that it is not about ISO, W3C, WCAG, etc. but an API to extensions. For example, OSGI is a standard to allow pluggable components within applications. They only define the interaction parts (and give a framework). The eclipse IDE uses OSGI as plugin mechanism in their latest version. It's all about life cycle and platform - extension communication.

_________________
°°°°'°°°°
"All you need is Bytes" (Bitles, 2368)