Any clues as to why they switched? Code maintenance, performance, scalability, ...? There might be some valuable lessons to be learned by the broader community, so if you are at liberty to divulge anything, let us know.
And the announcement about the Magnolia implementation is from February 2007 - barely a year ago. Given that a typical large scale implementation takes at least 6 months to go from concept to implementation to test to production...they switched and they switched pretty quickly. It may have been a business decision rather than a technological one - i.e. "well, the new CIO hates Java so we have to move all applications to something other than Java."
I once had Magnolia in an evaluation process, and I liked it's simplicity a lot. But Magnolia heavily relies on the Web 1.0 approach - building pages and fill them with content. It falls short when it comes to flexiblity and reuse of content, and this is true for most of all the CMS I have ever used. None of them has Drupal's flexibility in organising content (content *management* in it's true meaning), and this is more important in daily work than Drupals weaknesses (e.g. file management)
Any clues as to why they switched? Code maintenance, performance, scalability, ...? There might be some valuable lessons to be learned by the broader community, so if you are at liberty to divulge anything, let us know.
May 8, 2008 - 20:13And the announcement about the Magnolia implementation is from February 2007 - barely a year ago. Given that a typical large scale implementation takes at least 6 months to go from concept to implementation to test to production...they switched and they switched pretty quickly. It may have been a business decision rather than a technological one - i.e. "well, the new CIO hates Java so we have to move all applications to something other than Java."
May 9, 2008 - 10:32I once had Magnolia in an evaluation process, and I liked it's simplicity a lot. But Magnolia heavily relies on the Web 1.0 approach - building pages and fill them with content. It falls short when it comes to flexiblity and reuse of content, and this is true for most of all the CMS I have ever used. None of them has Drupal's flexibility in organising content (content *management* in it's true meaning), and this is more important in daily work than Drupals weaknesses (e.g. file management)
May 11, 2008 - 14:12Post new comment