Talk:Drupal/Archives/2008/July
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Drupal. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Criticism section unreadable
The criticism section is full of technobabble and is nigh on unreadable, and quite ambiguos.
In particular, what is meant by 'assign genuine full access privileges to the database user-administrator' I'm guessing this means the database account drupal uses needs all privleges?
'optioned-out of some hosting services control panels or phpMyAdmin installations' can be worded better. Why not 'disallowed by some hosting providers'. And I don't think we really need to specify common database administration mechanisms, it is dissallowed whether they use phpMyAdmin, type the SQL calls themself, or use a hex-editor to directly edit the database files (noone does this, but I hope you see my point).
'execute full connection privileges to the database from the script when it is called in a browser window from the base URL' is similarly hard to understand. What is meant by executing 'full connection privileges'? I'm guessing the rest of it means someone makes an HTTP request on the URL of the script. Why not say something like 'when someone browses the site'. As above, the script gets called whether someone uses a browser or uses netcat/telnet. They don't need to call it in 'a browser window from the base URL' for the problem (whatever it is, it makes no sense) to occur.ConditionalZenith 00:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- It seems that the critism from some people about use of anti-patterns (such as moducles coded into core) and such things that might be called code smell is missing. --62.56.117.190 15:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
It seems that in recent days there has been remarkable progress on the criticism section. However the paragraph about "execute full connection privileges" still makes little sense. I would fix it if I knew what they were talking about. Does anyone have any idea what this means?ConditionalZenith 01:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't make much sense to mark the "criticism" section with a neutrality disputed flag. Was that just added by someone who doesn't like to see any criticism of Drupal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DonPMitchell (talk • contribs) 17:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
The criticism section is valid and deserves elaboration and no "neutrality disputed" flag. I have more than 10 years of Web development experience but have found Drupal almost impenetrable if you want to do things that are not baked into the modules. A key tenet of object-oriented programming, which has been widely accepted in recent years, is encapsulation. One part of the code should not cause side effects in other parts. Yet Drupal's design seems the opposite, with almost everything being interdependent. You can't change a module without fear of the whole system not working. 63.80.159.129 (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. With also "some" experience in developpements in general, this section is highly "neutrality disputed". If one find difficult to learn Drupal why not, but, using real OO technics is never an insurance of a good code. The Drupal design is really modular even if not written as "pure" OO. In additions, this section is not present for almost all other CMS in wikipedia. Quite unfair ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.42.56.43 (talk) 14:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)