My idea

[RedEye]

Recently, I saw a "so-called" Joomla expert, that goes to Joomla conferences as a speaker, asking on twitter where the hell did Weblinks went, after he updated some site!!! Well... "You tell me, Mr. expert"!!!!

[smpleader]

HRADigital , Your attitude is too hot for a discussion . It seem you are finding someone to through your rubbish. I have been expect to have more open mind discussion here, not something like those words. I will not say anything with you any more.
Anyone who have more share, I am happy to hear.
Please make this community better.
Thank you very much.

[HRADigital]

HRADigital , Your attitude is too hot for a discussion . It seem you are finding someone to through your rubbish.

I think you might have missed the point. I made several critics, that might be seen as productive, although in a somewhat severe manner, which by the way, only comes out of frustration with Joomla.
What I have replied to your post, was a reflex to what seems to be the norm in forums like this, which is, trying to end a critic, with the assumption that if someone hasn't made a contribution (in code) to the project, shouldn't be allowed to speak negatively about it... That has a name, and it's called tyranny!

HRADigital, What's your recommend here, in short ?

In short, I do like Joomla, but it makes me mad the way Joomla does things!!!
There are several aspects of Joomla, that (IMO) make no sense... The file structure and MVC are the most serious in my opinion.
Recently, I even read that Joomla is going to push the CMS to the front-end, making it unnecessary for the user to even login into the administrator... This might seam a good idea at first, but that means that the front-end will need all the back-end dependencies even if you don't want them there...
Your will have to use bootstrap, even if you don't want it there, and you will have to use JQuery, even if you don't want it there... And these dependencies, are not isolated files. They come in groups...

Regarding the file structure...
Why do you need to have one "components" folder, and one "modules" folder in the administrator's side, and the folders "components", "modules" and "plugins" in the public side?!?!?
Why not just have an "extentions" folder, with all the extensions there, and make its location flexible?! When you develop a component, you already have an "admin" and a "site" folder in it, and the types of extensions are already specified in the main folder prefix ("com_", "mod_", "tmpl_" and "plg_"?)... Why do you need all these folders all around Joomla?!
What's the point of having a folder called "libraries", and a separate called "includes"?!?! Why isn't their location flexible?!?!

Regarding MVC...
What's the purpose of having a main entry file, a master controller and sub-controllers (in the "controllers" folder) on a component?!
Why not load the controller "controllername", and call the method "controllername", when none are specified (by default: "controllername.controllername")?!?!?!
Why have a variable called "option" and another called "task" in the query string, when one should suffice?!?!

What is the purpose of having a "model" object, that barely does anything, when you have a "table" object that actually does the model's work?!?! Why not do it all in the same class?!
Why shouldn't the model be picked by the developer in the controller class?! Why can't a developer call more than one model, while executing a specific task?!

Why should the end user (front-end user) be allowed to specify the view/format (layout) to be presented?!?! And why do you actually need these two variables?!?!?! Shouldn't the controller "display" whatever view it finds fit, for the purpose?! Isn't a different "layout", just another "view"?!

If the MVC pattern would be implemented properly, most of the routing/SEO problems would disappear...

And lastly, why shouldn't the administrator be a separate application to the front-end, with all the dependencies being routed to their flexible locations ("extentions", "libraries", etc...)?!?!

Now, regarding your previous post about WP...
Just because WP is more popular, it doesn't mean it's better... I'm sure that, Renault is more popular than Bugatti, Ferrari or Porsche, but you wouldn't classify Renaults as the best cars around, would you?!
At this time, Joomla's already a better CMS than WP, so, why should Joomla community try to be more like WP?!?!
IMO, this makes no sense, since both have the same exact costumer price (free)!!! If they become the exact same tool, then, what's the point?!

I truly wish that someone in the development team (that matters), would comment some of these statements, because sometimes it seams that the only ones that speak out/sell the tool, are those "puppets" that go to conferences to talk about how many languages Joomla supports, or how many people use "this and that" functions (only used in personal sites)....
Well... Nothing but regular users, talking in the name of a whole community, as if, they're technical gurus and/or they own the tool... More of the same, all around!!!
PS: I also don't know where Weblinks went, but I stay at home!!!!

My 2 cents!!!

[smpleader]

Thank you HRADigital for your precious points . It worth millions of dollars.
I thought of change Joomla structure before, but I still wait / look for Joomla team's big step.
I am both disappointed for current plan they arranged, and I know we will lost market for long.
I expect to see Joomla come and bring us some hope here ... before it's too late.
Keep connected, I expect to send something better more, within this year.
Thank you very much.

[mbabker]

HRADigital you're really trying to push some buttons.

First, just to be clear, there is no "development team", for better or worse. The software is built and managed by a bunch of volunteers, there is no real team driving or managing its vision or development other than to make decisions on what patches are applied. That might offend some but IMO as a past leadership team member that's my perception. So you aren't going to get an answer from "someone that matters". Now getting into your technical nitpicking...

Dating back to Mambo, Joomla has always acted as two separate applications; the frontend and admin. Everything at the extension level was split between them, and that design decision has still carried forward to this day. Can it be improved? Absolutely. Will it be? Truthfully, as much as I'd like to see it change, I'm also going to say I doubt it. A major structure overhaul like that will be a massive backward compatibility break; without some mighty fine explanations, users aren't gonna see the benefit and those writing extensions are going to have to be convinced to make the same changes to their code.

The entry point file in components and modules predates Joomla adopting an MVC infrastructure, but that file to this day is arguably the most powerful tool in a component developer's toolkit. It enables developers to create components that can do much more and allows them to not have to implement Joomla's MVC layer at all. In many ways it serves as a dispatcher of sorts. The logic itself could be wrapped into an OOP interface and the concept of a component dispatcher (used in FOF extensions today) be built into the core API. If we had an even better services layer, that file or my hypothetical dispatcher class could serve a much larger purpose too (are you familiar with Symfony bundles; the Bundle class is what I start to think of here).

The option and task query vars, while also relics of Joomla past, are how URLs get mapped to components and controllers. Without the option, Joomla can't route to a controller, and the task defaults to display, so that can be omitted for most pages (it's only needed if you're routing to an edit or save task, for example). Again, it can be improved, but you're also imposing a major compatibility break for what gain; less query vars in non-SEF URLs?

Models in Joomla aren't done right at all. For a true MVC implementation you'd have to move a lot of their logic into controllers. Not gonna nitpick on that too much.

By default, a single model is wired up in controllers, and views. In both of those objects though, additional models can be loaded if you need them (see the getModel method in controllers). So that gripe IMO is unfounded.

Our controllers aren't mapped one-to-one with views. So the view query var actually becomes important here; if you're using a default controller for the display task you need to tell it what view to map to. Again another shortcoming in Joomla's MVC (or strength depending on who you ask), but it serves it's purpose. The layout var lets you change the layout of the view without needing additional views (like the category views in com_content, there's default and blog layouts). So that gives some user flexibility too.

Proper MVC wouldn't fix the routing issues in Joomla. Frankly, we've got a hugely complex system for figuring out URL structures and depending on your site's config, core may be supporting of up to 3 URL schemes (the non-SEF structure, URLs as /component/content/article, and URLs based on your menu config). By giving so much flexibility to the code and user, we've created quite a few issues for ourselves. And as long as we have a system that doesn't enforce a single URL being mapped to a single controller task, it isn't an issue that will go away. Also remember routing is just one small piece of the puzzle; between menu routes, module configs, and other user options, that one controller may end up being called by 3 or 4 URLs with different rendering behaviors.

Don't take this post as me being dismissive or saying there aren't issues and everything is awesome. I know there are flaws. For a mass distributed platform like our's, some are things we have to live with. Some are things we need to be working on, but for one reason or another they don't change. But at the same time, the project has already proven it can't manage major change (look at every major version migration and how upgrades were basically an afterthought); so the project needs to earn trust and confidence from its user base to enable it to make major (needed) changes. I don't see that happening anytime soon either.

[HRADigital]

First, just to be clear, there is no "development team", for better or worse. The software is built and managed by a bunch of volunteers, there is no real team driving or managing its vision or development other than to make decisions on what patches are applied. That might offend some but IMO as a past leadership team member that's my perception. So you aren't going to get an answer from "someone that matters".

Hi...
There is no development team, but there are development working groups, so, even if they are community driven, there's always someone, at some given time, more qualified to know first-hand what is "on the table" regarding the development, right?
When I was talking about "someone that matters", I was referring to these community members.

Dating back to Mambo, Joomla has always acted as two separate applications; the frontend and admin. Everything at the extension level was split between them, and that design decision has still carried forward to this day. Can it be improved? Absolutely. Will it be? Truthfully, as much as I'd like to see it change, I'm also going to say I doubt it. A major structure overhaul like that will be a massive backward compatibility break; without some mighty fine explanations, users aren't gonna see the benefit and those writing extensions are going to have to be convinced to make the same changes to their code.

IMO, "both" applications aren't really separated, because you can't really take the administrator's application, and place it somewhere else (different domain, within same server). The administrator's folder, has to always be a sub-folder of Joomla's root.

Regarding backward compatibility, I have my reservations about it breaking!!!
The correct structure is already in your deployment file (admin/site), and if the developer uses Joomla's JPath variables for file-system navigation, and stores it's dependencies in the media folder, then I'm not seeing the need for a single line of code change, to be honest.
On top of that, the extension is called by the core, so, you don't really need a third party to make any changes on where the extension is called from.

The entry point file in components and modules predates Joomla adopting an MVC infrastructure, but that file to this day is arguably the most powerful tool in a component developer's toolkit. It enables developers to create components that can do much more and allows them to not have to implement Joomla's MVC layer at all.

I'm just saying that the entry point doesn't make sense, not that it's purpose doesn't make sense. What I mean by this, is that if Joomla extensions are to be primarily MVC pattern extensions, then the entry point should change.
If your option var has the value "com_mycomp", then the entry file should be a method called "mycomp", in a class called "MyCompController", in a file called "mycomp.php", in the controllers folder of the component.
This doesn't mean, that the MyCompController class should inherit from any of the JController classes, or that it will implement any MVC. An entry point, is just an entry point.

The option and task query vars, while also relics of Joomla past, are how URLs get mapped to components and controllers. Without the option, Joomla can't route to a controller, and the task defaults to display, so that can be omitted for most pages (it's only needed if you're routing to an edit or save task, for example). Again, it can be improved, but you're also imposing a major compatibility break for what gain; less query vars in non-SEF URLs?

The idea not only was to simplify the extension logic, but also to simplify SEF URL creation as well. Maybe, even discard the router.php file.
If a Menu Item's node, holds already the context language, component/controller and method to be called, then most of the website is already contextualized, if the controller's method calls directly the Model(s) and the View to be displayed.
If you add an extra segment to the URL, you already know it's going to be some Alias, for a specific View.

Regarding compatibility issues, you can make an extension that deploys files to a "2.X" version of Joomla, and/or a "3.X" version. If there were no compatibility issues between them, you would only need one file version deployment, right???
Even after "3.X" was launched, "2.X" was still supported for a long time, so, why not make things differently in version "4.X" of Joomla, while keeping the support for version "3.X" as well?!

By default, a single model is wired up in controllers, and views. In both of those objects though, additional models can be loaded if you need them (see the getModel method in controllers). So that gripe IMO is unfounded.

That is true!
I withdraw my previous statement.

Our controllers aren't mapped one-to-one with views. So the view query var actually becomes important here; (...) The layout var lets you change the layout of the view without needing additional views (like the category views in com_content, there's default and blog layouts).

But should the end user be allowed to change it in the query string? That was my point.
I agree with your statement, that a controller shouldn't be stuck with an "hard-coded" view, but I think is the developer's job to decide which one to use, and not the end user.

Proper MVC wouldn't fix the routing issues in Joomla. (...) between menu routes, module configs, and other user options, that one controller may end up being called by 3 or 4 URLs with different rendering behaviors.

Can't that be seen as content replication by some Search Engines?!
One content, in a specific web-site, should only be called by a single URL, or am I seeing this wrong?

Don't take this post as me being dismissive or saying there aren't issues and everything is awesome.

Not at all. At last, someone with a good core knowledge was come out and talked about possible improvements in Joomla. I wouldn't be typing this long posts, if I also didn't care about the platform, so it's nice to get some feedback about issues it might have, even if the discussions can be just at an academic level, and might not produce any effective change...

Cheers.

[NEXTFR]

Hi!
I worked with WordPress.com and I can say that it is easier than working with Joomla.org

Tomas

[jonnygaet]

Hi! I worked with WordPress.com and I can say that it is easier than working with Joomla.org

I also think that working with WordPress easier with Joomla

[John Adam]

I think its not difficult to use Joomla. But most of the "abc guide" on the internet are use WP as an example, so WP looks more friendly for "noob" user - like me :3

[siobhandiaz]

I think that's a fantastic idea. Many novice users use godaddy and they have a one button install for joomla and wordpress. You're on to something though. The ideal system would be to have someone just create an email and password and it automatically creates and installs joomla. That might exist though.

[julia13]

I think Wordpress is easier than Joomla, but I like Joompla.

[Gany]

No, it is PERCEIVED as easier. Which is a point Joomla really should address and in a hurry at that! I got more and more clients who insist on a WP site, because they see it as much easier. Not a bit easier, but much easier.

Why? Because the backend interface is easier to understand, works with drag & drop. Seems more logical. All they have to do is look at one page (not really, but the WP backend seems like one page) and mainly drag and drop what is required. One client manages a fairly popular blog with ease from his tablet. He doesn't even have a pc... That's something I don't think people would like to do with Joomla.

Yes, there are loads of problems. WP doesn't eat server space, it guzzles it up. Not a problem for him, he has unlimited disk space. You can't organize images in folders without an extension and some trouble. Doesn't bother him at all, he always adds new pics anyways. Finding an article back can be a hellish job. No big deal for him, "as we previously posted" will do dandy. Forget bilingual websites with WP. You don't want to enter that nightmare. So what;s answer? I use one language! Doesn't bother me at all.

Again, it's how clients with limited skills perceive it to be. It's not the Betamax - VHS debate, both are excellent systems. But one looks a lot easier than the other. The market forces me into that direction, whether I like it or not.

Another point to ponder are extensions. There are tons of very good highly professional extensions for free available in WP. Many times more than in Joomla. So we loose on a backend that looks very complicated, as well as a relative lack of good extensions available.

And that, my friends, is what we have to improve on.

[QuoteMe]

Wordpress has a blog-feeling thing over it. It makes it feel alot easier. Joomla would do something lika 1-click installer or so

I couldn't agree more. Have been stuggeling myself with Joomia installation. The easier installation can become, the more people will use it.