[TYPO3-hci] BE vs FE

[Waldemar Kornewald]

On 8/1/06, Tapio Markula <tapio.markula at dnainternet.net> wrote:
> Waldemar Kornewald wrote:
> > On 8/1/06, Tapio Markula <tapio.markula at dnainternet.net> wrote:
> >
> >>  >Well, you could have two kinds of views for folders: list view and
> >> image view  (like in WinXP)
> >>
> >> they are in fact two kinds of views - maybe better names could be used.
>
> maybe a good idea

Here, you're replying to yourself. ;)

> > But those records in Web>List aren't necessarily shown on the page,
> > either.
>
> but all of them are *database* records

So what? Why should this technical detail limit the way we interact
with computers?

>   In those cases where the image/file is hidden you can create a
> > hidden page which acts like a folder.
>
> hidden page might act like a folder, but page in page tree
> is not newer real folder like folder, which contains images and other
> files, which are *real folders in the hard disk*
> IMO saparting *database records* and real folder *in the harddisk*

* As the end-user all you want to do is upload a file.

* Why should you care about the storage location on the server?

* As an end-user you should only care about the *visual* (not
physical) location in the CMS.

* In the background the CMS can decide automatically whether to store
your record in the DB or on the FS. Files would always be stored on
the FS, for example.

* ATM it's totally unimportant how the CMS keeps track of those
records. All that counts at this stage is the UI concept.

* Folders are containers and so are pages, but pages are more powerful
and they are the main concept of a CMS. There is no reason to
introduce yet another separate concept if pages are more handy and
files/images most often belong to one specific page.

> > will actually appear on some page and it's more intuitive to put
> > related files and pages together.
>
> maybe but IMO it is good to separate database and hard disk folders

For what reason? Performance? That's a technical detail which should
not be of any interest to the end-user. Like I mentioned above, the
CMS can handle this automatically, so it would be as fast as the
current scheme.

> > which could easily be unified. Every new concepts means that you have
> > to learn it. Why don't you try to reduce the number of concepts?
>
> but you could in this case mix database record and real folder

Why would a normal user be interested in such a detail? That's only
interesting for developers. Normal user don't care about the
"database" or storage backend. They want their job to get done as
easily as possible.

Bye,
Waldemar Kornewald