Currently I'm using DokuWiki to manage my apps/scripts documentation, some articles I write and stuff like that... I like DokuWiki very much, it's simple and powerful but it's still too much for the use I've given it in the last 1/2 years.
I need something else, something different...
I'm looking for a way to integrate the little things I like in DokuWiki into my own website without needing a script, like DokuWiki, with it's own admin page. The website itself, my homepage, I like to code myself most of the things so it becomes exactly what I want. However, somethings I don't have much time for, that is why I'm using DokuWiki.
I want to ditch DokuWiki and scripts like these because I don't even use half of their capabilities. A wiki is a platform where people join their efforts and collaborate together to write stuff, it also has a revision system. These are two very important aspects about wikis that I don't care about for my own. I'm the only one writing stuff there and I don't care about revisions, never needed them.
What I like about DokuWiki is that I can point my browser to any URL within the wiki domain and create a page from there if it doesn't exist. I also like DokuWiki's syntax very much but sometimes it's very limited and I can't do what I want. The way you link between namespaces and such is also very nice. Too finish, a media/file manager is also very handy. These are probably the most important aspects for me in DokuWiki.
Basically, I'm looking for something, maybe a script, that would allow me to do the stuff I described above in a way I could integrate into my own website without needing a special administration area.
Does anyone know about such thing or I'm better off coding my own since my requirements are not that tricky to begin with, I just didn't want to have the extra work...
Or maybe any other suggestions?
Maybe you'll want to have a look at something like TiddlyWiki, which is a single-file wiki, that you can even put on a USB stick.
I chose xwiki over dokuwiki.
Another simple wiki is the one included with fogbugz. It is hosted for free for up to 2 users and might suit your project.
I may be off but very simple wiki with no administration and no users is LionWiki. I don't know how easy it's gonna be to integrate it into your website.
It's just one file and does not use database (like DokuWiki).
It does not have a lot of features though. It also uses a different syntax from that of DokuWiki.
Related
I am trying figure out which one (Pedestal, Hoplon, Bidi) should i use? I didn't find any good article in the Internet which help me with this choice.
From https://github.com/juxt/bidi i can read Pedestal is isomorphic, but Bidi is also cljs. What is it mean? What is the difference?
I found compojure is too simply. I can't even generate URLs in HTML templates. I started looking something else. I found also route-one (library to generate URLs working with compojure), but i guess soon i will discover i need something more then compojure have again.
My intuition say me to choose between: Pedestal, Hoplon and Bidi.
What i need:
I want have independent business model architecture like
http://blog.8thlight.com/uncle-bob/2012/08/13/the-clean-architecture.html
http://blog.find-method.de/index.php?/archives/209-Dependency-inversion-in-Clojure.html
I don't want depend this part of code with any framework. Less dependency is better.
On next stage i want inject this model business into something like bridge, which will be the connector with user interface. It can be time for framework or additional libraries.
And at least i want create frontend user interface as website. It will be dynamic content with ClojureScript or mayby static. I don't know. I have to thing about both.
What i found out in Clojure i really like conception of building my own set of libraries based on my preferences. But i don't want write my own code to use things like generate URLs for routes. So mayby i should also consider route-one?
Please write something clever what help me choose one or complicate my live with some other option to choose :)
https://github.com/juxt/bidi
https://github.com/pedestal/pedestal
https://github.com/tailrecursion/hoplon
https://github.com/clojurewerkz/route-one
This is an ancient question, and I don't pretend to have an answer (much less "the" answer). But I'm googling for some of the same basic pieces tonight, and my search results came back with this response.
So I figured I'd jot down notes about my [very] limited understanding here.
Bidi seems awesome. From what I've seen, juxt produces very high quality software. For places where I need REST-style interface routing (which includes sending related routes back), this is my current GOTO choice.
Pedestal - also awesome. But it seems to be a very different use case. Routing
is a very small subset here (and they've tried multiple approaches to come up with a really good set of options). This seems to be more of a fairly low-level full-featured server-side library for integrating the code you care about with the underlying server pieces that you don't.
To be honest, I'm not sure Pedestal's routing libraries really support the reverse endpoints you have to have for REST. I think they almost definitely do, but I'm not positive. My use cases have all been about their interceptor chaining abstraction, which is mind-blowingly awesome.
Hoplon - I haven't looked at this in 2-3 years. At the time, it seemed like a big, bold, high-level kitchen-sink framework that's somewhere in the same ballpark as Ruby On Rails (although I think there are also front-end components). I've been writing API end-points, and this didn't seem like a good fit at the time. It deserves more attention than I gave it.
route-one - I hadn't heard about it before this question. I've gotten good impressions from everything that I have used from clojurewerkz, but that usage has been very light.
We operate a ColdFusion site with a custom CSS acting as a directory of various companies. Depending on the type of company, we have a set of subpages containing specific information pulled from the CMS about the company, such as "location/directions". We're looking to add functionality enabling users to add comments to the existing content. I'm looking for suggestions on open source or other available ColdFusion software out there that could work for this. While we could write something custom, commenting tools have been done a thousand times and probably better than we can do it.
While what we're looking for sounds like a blog or forum, its more of a hybrid. We'd like to be able to add functionality enabling commenting on the content we post in the context we post it in. Seems like there must be something out there that can be easily modified and integrated with our CMS.
Does anyone know of anything out there we should look into?
I'm going to vote to close this too, as per the others, but here's an answer anyway.
If you just want to add commenting to existing content, perhaps use Disqus. It's not locally installable (and is not CFML-based; it's all JS), but it does handle most things one would need if just wanting to add comments to a site.
If you want a native, self-managed solution, unfortunately StackOverflow have deemed that sort of question "unworthy", so you'll need to ask elsewhere. Despite being an entirely reasonable question, for which the answers would be helpful to other people later on (which is - in theory - the raison d'etre of Stack Overflow. Although that's hard to tell, sometimes).
I am currently developing a website. I would like to separate content and presentation. I am currently using a Dreamweaver Template to achieve this. However, I find that Dreamweaver's edit regions are very limiting in the design view. I have found that the same goal can be achieved by including the header and footer of my website.
What are the pros and cons of using includes rather than using templates?
First, if I were to rephrase your question, it's more like asking "Should I by a wire frame of a kite or by the glue to stick together what I'm making?" And then, you ask about the pros and cons of buying the wireframe against buying the glue. There are far too many variables as you can see...
And back on your your question... At some point your template will use include files. And for a start, it's worth knowing what you're thinking... Let's look at some basics.
Web design - usually refers to making websites that aren't really interactive. They don't have server-side elements. So most of the site has 'static' contents. If this were the case, you're better off with DreamWeaver, particularly if you're not into html/css editing.
Web development/programming - starts off with something as elementary as mailing a form, to highly interactive sites like FaceBook. Here you'll need to use some server-side language, usually like PHP, ASP or JSP. The choices are many but you've got to choose your own platform or combination of them.
Now to the second option (above). If for example, you were building a site using PHP, one of the nice things you'll do is to include your header, footer and side panels that need to be repeated across all pages. This way, you'll eliminate the need to re-write those sections. But if you were using a program like DreamWeaver, it does this duplication for you. Yes, it physically copy-pastes those sections into every file that needs it. Of course the end result may not be any different. But as a developer, you will be tied down to the DreamWeaver platform or for that matter, any other specific platform.
On the other hand, if you get used to working with an editor like NotePad++ or GEdit, you may switch between editors at any time. But you have the task of hand-coding everything from scratch. But then again, since you would use include files to bring in your headers and stuff, you save development time as well.
I don't know how much of html/css or php you know, but here's one of my demos to show you how to hand-code a site. This ain't complete but you should get an idea.
Link to the video introduction
Link to the video on youtube
I want to do something a bit like they have on IMDb - every film and every person has a forum dedicated just to them. I also want to have a forum on the main message boards, which would show all the threads from the film pages and another forum for all the threads from the people pages.
I've been looking at DjangoBB, Dinette and Sphene (SCT). DjangoBB looks like it has the most features and it's very elegant. Dinette doesn't seem that far behind. Sphene has a few disadvantages - less features I think and it makes me dependent on Sphene's Community app, but it seems like it might be the easiest to use in my scenario - I've seen examples of Sphene being used in similar fashion.
I'm pretty sure all three can be made to do more or less what I want, but would love some opinions on what might work best for me.
Another thing to consider: you could just use django-threadedcomments. It won't be as full-featured as installing a full forum solution, but has the advantage of being very compact and flexible -- basically, threaded comments can be attached to anything (a Person, a Film, etc).
It appears that DjangoBB and Dinette are not set up so that forums could attach themselves to a record in this fashion. Not sure about Sphene but it sounds like you'd have to use the entire community app.
I've set up a very, very simple Discussion app that could perform what you want. If you're interested let me know and I'll put it up on github for you to take a look at. Note that it's not at all full-featured like the ones you mentioned.
A bit late to answer this, but I think it might be worth mentioning The Pinax Project, which is django-based and is geared toward rapid development of social websites with many applications integrated together and customizeable at the user-level.
What is best way for making a draw panel in a web page. I would like to know how to develop something very simple,for example little panel where users can draw a signature.
This is great example drawhere.com, but I need something way simpler.
Thanks
Whilst Zifre's answer is valid in one sense, I would be very weary of the <canvas> tag, at least at the moment, due to there not being fantastic support for it (as many browsers don't yet fully support HTML5).
Some browsers support it (most notably Firefox and anything running on Webkit), but swathes of others don't (especially older browsers). It's perhaps better to go for a more universal solution (though, by no means completely universal), and use something like Flash.
The easiest way to do this is probably with the <canvas> tag and some JavaScript. Here is a really simple example to get you started. You can add more functions for things like circles, boxes, etc.
I'm sure somebody has already made something like this that you could use, but I couldn't find any.