This project has moved and is read-only. For the latest updates, please go here.

New user registration

Mar 6, 2010 at 2:02 PM

In ASP.NET I can have a login and registration forms.

In Graffiti CMS is there a simple way of adding login and registration to the site

without having admin login and add it, manually?

Thanks for your answers.

 

Mar 10, 2010 at 4:22 AM

It is not possible right now without modifying the code base yourself, and I honestly don't know that it is in the spirit of what Graffiti does or intends to do.  It is a CMS, not a forum (or a wiki, or any other social networking type app).  With a CMS, you typically want some control over who can log in to your site and modify content.  Having a registration form would prevent that.

Mar 10, 2010 at 11:05 AM

I wonder if it is counter-productive to declare certain things as "not-in-the-spirit" and thus possibly disuade folks from coming up with new and different ways of extending  Graffiti. It may not be what the original developer(s) had in mind, but I am not sure that should count for too much at this point.

As someone that is using Graffiti as a building block for other projects, I personally would love to see lots of add-ons available; especially optional ones that could be plugged in without compromising the core part of the system. The more the better. Whether or not this particular feature falls into that category or not, I don't know, but lets not discourage folks from making a go at it prematurely.

 

 

 

 

 

Mar 10, 2010 at 2:30 PM

I agree with your sentiment completely, but things like this really need to be thought through:

  • Can the idea be handled with a plugin or via chalk methods?
  • Is the idea something that fits into the core competencies of Graffiti? 

To determine if something should be included in Graffiti, I feel that those are really the only two questions that need to be asked. For this particular concept, there is absolutely no way the to do it via the available extension methods (plugins and chalk). As for whether or not it fits with the core competencies of Graffiti, I personally do not believe it does. Like I've said, Graffiti is a CMS, not a social networking app. True, it is a very powerful CMS and has a great ability to expand, but it is still a CMS.

If you are looking for a platform as the basis for a social networking-type application, there are MUCH better options out there, .Net or not. For a Q&A site, like the original poster wants, there's the Stack Exchange platform, which may or may not meet the need. In general, DotNetNuke is designed to allow for any kind of extension that you want, and it is also designed to allow user registrations.

I agree that anyone should be free to extend Graffiti however they want, but why would you bother when there are much better solutions for your specific need which would require significantly less time to develop. And I'm guessing the original poster has little desire to make modifications to the core code anyways, based on how things were worded here and in the other post.

I do disagree with your first sentiment, however. I believe that it is in everyone's best interest to have a clear outline of what Graffiti is, especially now that it is open-source. If you do not have a clear roadmap for what the project is trying to accomplish, it will never move forward and improve. If the desire of the open source project is to turn it into a competitor for something like DotNetNuke, then fine, I'm good with trying to work out ways to extend it every way possible. However, I do not believe that this is, nor should it be the goal of Graffiti. Because of this, I think that we should be focused on making Graffiti the best CMS out there, and then work on expanding into other areas. There is nothing stopping anyone from doing whatever they want with the Graffiti code base, but at one point, it ceases to be Graffiti CMS, and becomes an offshoot project on its own.

Mar 11, 2010 at 12:22 AM

Granted that the current value is it's CMS ability I just envisioned that even newspaper sites have registered member content.

I would like to add personalised registered content to the different users.

The simple anyone join membership was for a demo, not a real app.

I'm not sure that your thinking is focused and not small minded.

I hope you can see positive criticism in this?

Mar 11, 2010 at 12:27 AM

Your example is flawed - newspaper sites do not have true user generated content; they have things like comments, which is exactly what Graffiti already supports.

Mar 11, 2010 at 8:51 PM

I certainly see points on either side of the argument, but having a registration form so users can sign in/out doesn't look like it derails the CMS at all.  In fact, it might add value.  e.g. for those posting comments, prepopulating the comment and knowing who is posting seems like a benefit.

Then, there is logic when posting already in place (to allow for comments), this could be altered to allow comments to only registered users.

Other benefits might inlcude: having a subscriber list - those who wish to receive emails (company or personal).

I get that it's focus is CMS first, but the term CMS and definition doesn't have to limit it's potential.

In any event, it should be a discussion, not a flame war or well hidden insults.

 

Mar 15, 2010 at 3:23 AM

First of all, this is all just my opinion, and if people want to see registration for Graffiti, then by all means, build it. And I have no problem with it being in the actual code base, and not a branched project, if people really want it there and as long as it is written with high quality standards, and can be turned off for the majority of sites that will never make use of it. I just don't think it makes a lot of sense to branch out into entirely different realms when there are plenty of solid alternatives in those areas already. I disagree with you wholeheartedly that adding user registration adds value to a CMS - it just makes it that much harder to manage.

I would also argue that it doesn't make sense to go and spend a ton of time expanding on the commenting functionality in Graffiti when many Graffiti-based sites are replacing the built-in comments with much more robust systems anyways (check out Disqus and you'll see what I mean).