Fixing the website
perl at aaroncrane.co.uk
Tue Nov 15 13:18:59 GMT 2005
Simon Wilcox writes:
> Bricolage (www.bricolage.cc) is perl based and very flexible. Trouble is
> that with the flexibility comes a fairly steep learning curve and it can
> be a bitch to set up.
Indeed. My experience with Bricolage suggests the following:
- For smaller sites, Bricolage is substantially more effort to deploy
and look after than a trivial solution like ttree. This is
particularly true if the people maintaining the content can ssh to
the server and edit there, or can drive a version-control working
copy and commit appropriately.
- For larger sites, Bricolage is substantially more effort to deploy
and look after than a custom-written CMS. I think it takes less
than a month for one person to write a full CMS from scratch. Much
less, if the feature list is short, and you have a useful toolbox of
reusable web-app code to throw at the problem. Bricolage
deployments of any significant size or complexity take considerably
longer than a month.
Also, if new features come along every week or two, it'll probably
be much easier to add them to your own code than to find some way of
shoehorning them into Bricolage's way of doing things. And don't
forget that the people maintaining the content will need to be
trained in the arcane ways of operating Bricolage. Even people who
like Bricolage agree that creating and editing pages with it is less
> For those that are happy with svn, ssh and make/ttree it's probably
> overkill but I throw it out as an option.
Perhaps surprisingly, it turns out that Bricolage is also overkill for
those with big websites on which their entire business depends.
More information about the london.pm