tham tu

Thanks for the comment. I think your assessment is right on. I agree with you regarding the old method of placing content on a page. The pull method and the old content placement are not necessarily mutually exclusive. I’m make a lot of progress with a complete re-write of the underlying code. Once the new version is finished, the code will be in good shape to allow me to build some powerful features on top of it. I fully intend to add a content placement feature back in. It won’t work quite the same way as the old method but will actually be much more user friendly as it will use Ajax and be pretty much drag-and-drop. In order to get there, however, a re-write was necessary. The bad news, though, is that at the moment I don’t know when the new version will be available. Realistically it will not be available until late fall or winter of this year. If everyone can just hang in there, though, I promise it will be worth the wait.

Scott

thank you for this post, it clarifies a lot.

However the pull might be good for different presentation methods, it seems to take away the thing that made me discover SBC: easy (secondary) administration/editing. By that I mean the possibility of an HTML/PHP-untrained editor to just put some blocks on the “canvas” (modular conception, or “Baukastenprinzip” in German) and have the menus, content, links, etc that they want on that page.

With the pull paradigm, SBC seems to have been transformed into Yet Another Skinned Content Dispenser that needs some skilled admin to create page styles that can be applied by any editor but not easily altered.
The only chance to remedy this seems to create an (arbitrarily complex and monstrous) online skin editor/generator.

I do not have hands-on experience with SBC so please (PLEASE) correct me if I’m wrong. (And feel free to mail me).

cheers!
Georg

P.S: Due to the data storage concept (and pull scheme ) I think of SBC as one of the most intriguing SCMs anyway; maybe just not for that one project…