Related
I am creating the cms for a relatively simple site - portfolio, some general content pages, custom blog etc.
What are some of the best patterns to consider before diving into the design.
I want the system to be as flexible as possible without being too complex.
I have looked for some good resources that discus cms and blog design but can't find anything too good.
My language is php but I suppose I am looking for more language independent advice.
Flexibility without complexity... nice program.
Maybe you're a genius and you will make something that feet your needs. But I think the biggest problem you will face is security and robustness. So really, take other advices on this page and have a look at wordpress, drupal, joomla and ezpublish. A lot of security stuff is already done. And not only security...
So, study some of these tools, track their flaws, check their security policy. Study how they handle caching, sessions, bootstrap, absolute & relative url managment, documents (images, videos, etc), ajax, authentification, identification, acl, user interfaces, rich-text editing, migrations, templating, page composition, content filtering (I try to remove the things you won't need, plugins, database abstraction, fine caching, css and js minification, all the extra-complex stuff not needed for a single instance simple CMS). Soon you'll have a 'picture' of the stuff they've done.
By doing this work, you'll certainly notice some big differences, and mistakes. You'll start going on irc and flaming developpers, telling them that others have done better choices. You'll start forgetting to shave. You'll maybe do some contributions. Some will be accepted, others won't. Old core devs doesn't like when someone explain why they made mistakes (and they make mistakes).
Now, comes the day you have a beard. Some of your contributions will start looking like forks. You will have ennemies, and friends, or followers. And you will start feeling the force.
And you will go on irc and tell god that the world is ugly and that you'll make the first CMS which will be flexible without being complex. And people will cry. And birds will run in circles. And you will be able to explain what are the design pattern of a CMS.
I am a user. I know what I want. Doing what I want will make user happy. I'm happy.
You shall not trust code from people with glasses
"MVC MVC MVC" : and the people responds 'that shall be done'
Seriously, There's still a place for a good CMS with disruptive innovation, the fork history has started long time ago with phpNuke (as far as I can remember). But some of the actual products are really fine for most tasks.
I'm probably risking the reputation here, but my experience shows that building your own CMS can be a very justified decision, especially when you get familiar with current opensource systems and understand what exactly they lack in terms of features, security or what not. Open-source often means a lot of backward-compatibility concerns and bad architecture decisions that cannot be easily changed.
I strongly suggest that instead of just taking on MVC you take a look at ideas that make it attractive.
One main problem with CMSes is the range of technologies involved in driving dynamic web-sites: imperative php for logic, declarative SQL for data queries, markup HTML for interface, imperative/functional javascript for dynamic interface, JSON for ajax calls etc. To keep the system manageable you have to keep these technologies in a controlled and understandable environment, but yet allow for smooth integration. Knowledge and best practices are out there. MVC is but one approach to manage this problem.
My choice at the time was to use the following principles:
Object-oriented code with static calling (php is a one-run thing, many instances of code objects are rarely justified), nothing except for one line of init code in global context
100% code-design separation with the use of XSLT and custom content processor
Custom router that can take any http request and reroute it to registered methods
Custom content processor that can take arbitrary method output and convert it into any usable format such as xhtml, xml, json etc. based on the request parameters (i.e. http://local/class/method.xhtml, http://local/class/method.json)
One copy of code for as many virtual web servers as necessary
SQL query builder (chosen for flexibility over ORM) for all database queries
Mandatory filtering of method input with filter_* functions
I believe you can choose a few that you like :) And good luck!
A good pattern to start with is the Model View Controller pattern, or MVC.
This pattern suggests to seperate your application's logic in the following layers: data logic(model), manipulation or business logic (controller) and display logic (view).
This is a good pattern to start with as you'll run into other problems (and thus patterns) along the way.
The following website explains the MVC concept quite well: MVC Principles
There is no point reinventing the wheel unless you are trying to better it in anyway.
THere are a lot of CMS available already. I personally have worked with ezpublish. There are other options such as drupal etc. This is the list of all open source cms avaliable - Click here
If you are just trying to learn then you can perhaps pick any one of the popular opensource and work on them to find its architecture and design.
Besides, I dont think anyone can give you a list of design patterns that would be best for a CMS tool. Because each design pattern solves some particular problem. And, you just have to choose a design pattern depending on a specific problem you want to solve in your project.
These days, writing your own CMS is a horrible waste of time. The usual open source solutions -- these days Joomla, WordPress and Drupal are popular -- are written by thousands of people and while you might loose a little flexibility by using on that's ready made this is by far offset by not needing to redo everything from scratch. If you go with Drupal, you can also enjoy high quality, massively scalable etc code :)
If Your rquiremnt is portfolio, some general content pages, custom blog only, Wordpress will be simple and Better.
In PHP so many CMS available , most popular one is Joomla.
My company is looking at various PHP frameworks to build a customer's site. This is a shop that has some legacy in-house frameworks and we're trying to move away from that. In my spare time, I've coded in CodeIgniter and dabbled a bit in Kohana. I have yet to use a CMS like Joomla or Drupal, but I recognize that they're built using an MVC and PAC design pattern respectively. In starting my excavation, I came to the preliminary conclusion that it might make more sense to use something like CodeIgniter to build the user-facing portion of the site and something like Joomla to build the admin-facing portion of the site, such that Joomla is never loaded unless you specifically go to admin.xxxxx.com.
So following this logic (and please do let me know if it's very flawed), I'm here to ask if anyone's ever done anything like this before, and if so, what might be the best method of taking advantage of some of the more automated features of Joomla (sorry if I don't go into too much detail here...I haven't studied Joomla enough to know everything about it....please correct any gross cognitive errors!!) from within a more lightweight framework like CodeIgniter.
Or is this going down the wrong line of thinking? My first instinct is to just link the two by data in the database and never have them communicate directly, but I just wanted to be sure this was correct before I take it to my superiors.
Vielen dank, guys
Quite possibly flawed, all of these CMS's run on assuming that they are used for both admin and user site, the major problem this causes is that code and the way things work are very intertwined meaning that a simple 'hook in to the database' often isn't enough and you'll have to use most of the CMS code just to pull / put valid data - the other caveat with that is that if the admin is upgraded, it can easily change the database schema which would break your front end.
I'd highly recommend going with one or the other, either your own design using frameworks for admin and user site(s) - or just stick to single CMS and bolt on whatever functionality you need with plugins.
Best!
I Agree with Nathan.
When you're using pre-built frameworks you lack the control factor over the core elements, this is not good especially developing for a corporate system, you need to have full control over every part of the system for future developments / integration.
My advice is to start with a small but abstract system it would be more beneficial, my advice is to use a framework like codeignighter that consists of an MVC Pattern but also plays the simplicity role with ease.
Take a look at the OpenSource application called "OpenCart" which is a small MVC Store, the reason I say look at this is because it's an extremely basic MVC Pattern and can be abstracted for your applications.
Hope this information helps.
Regards.
When your using pre-built frameworks you lack the control factor over the core elements, this is not good especially developing for a corporate system, you need to have full control over every part of the system for future developments / integration.
Well I don't know if i would necessarily agree with you about this?
I am building an application currently in PHP and I am trying to decide on whether to use a pre-existing framework like codeigniter or build my own framework. The application needs to be really scalable and I want to be completely in control of it which makes me think I should build my own but at the same time I dont want to reinvent the wheel if I dont have to.
Any advice greatly appreciated.
Thanks
Use an existing framework.
First of all creating a framework from scratch represents a massive investment in time and effort. The process involves a lot of trial and error, because you're designing something that needs to be both simple and powerful. For every design decision you'll have to ask yourself how it will affect every single future project that will be built on your framework.
You'd think that you could take each design decision and weigh it against the requirements like you would do for any other software project, but the thing is you don't know your requirements. You can't know them, because a framework is supposed to be able to do almost anything (or have the ability to be extended to do almost anything) within its domain. Future project a will need to be able to do x. Can your framework allow that without turning it into spaghetti code? And what if project b needs to do y? What if project c needs to do z?
Have you predicted everything?
Now the normal response to this is that if something doesn't work, you'll just change it in the future. It's software after all. A framework however isn't like a simple application. It's supposed to have an interface and once you expose that to the software that will be using it, you can't change it. You can extend it, but not change it. So now you have to think about deprecating methods, api versions and version compatibility. It's a whole new set of problems to deal with along with normal framework maintenance and new application writing.
Then there's documentation. You need an API, tutorials, example code. Once you build your own framework you have to deal with this as well. You could ignore it, but I assure you that eventually you yourself will need to find out what that method you wrote 6 months ago does. What does it return? What if special case x happens? Have you written all that down, or do you need to step through the code again? And I wont even mention how easy it will be for a new team member to get started on a custom framework whose documentation lies completely or at least mostly in your head.
You also have to acknowledge that unless you're working with the very best and brightest (and have a budget to match) you'll never have the extensive set of libraries that existing frameworks boast. Can you analyze, design, code, test and debug faster than an open-source community?
Finally you should ask yourself if you are proficient enough to be writing a framework. Have you dived deep into the code of a modern OO PHP5 framework to find out what makes it tick? And most importantly do you know why it does things that particular way? Keep in mind that any mistake you make in your design can blow up in your face months from now and you can end up paying for them over and over again.
To sum things up I'd advice you to go with an existing framework; it doesn't mean however that you have to pick one and like it. Take the time you'd otherwise devote to developing a new framework and devote it to learning an existing one. Then you can extend it to fit your needs. Also remember that there could be things you wont be able to do. But I assure you there would be things you wouldn't be able to do with your own framework either, so it doesn't matter all that much. A framework imposes a few limitations. It's the price you pay for being able to develop applications faster.
Make a list of requirements for your framework (ORM, PHP 5.3, PDO, etc). Then iterate over the existing frameworks and narrow them down to find the ones matching with your requirements. Then look at the codebase, documentation, community, project activity – does it feel something you would like to work with? Also be realistic about the time needed to to implement all your requirements by yourself – do you want to focus to building an application or a framework?
I'm building my own and I'm very glad I did in terms of learning, which is important to me. Also I LOVE to be in total control of my code. It comes with lots of negatives though, the big one being I'm the only one that knows how to use it. Also, a lot of development time is spent on improving my framework rather than delivering products to my clients. But I can't stress enough that I really, really enjoy building and using it.
If you want to learn (A LOT) build your own. If you just want to get work done use an existing one. (Before starting my own I almost went with CodeIgniter)
While I've build my own CMS framework in the past, and used custom (in-house) general php frameworks, I'd find an active framework that fits your development style, and use it.
Unless your main product/application is the framework. But it doesn't seem that way.
Your concerns about control and scalability should be applied to the host of frameworks out there - giving you a short list of options that fit your requirements.
Certainly, it's not a question of 'in-house' vrs 'public', then once you've made that call just pick any old framework.
To answer the question behind the question, for a framework that gives you complete control and should be able to scale reasonable well (I'm not sure how you need the framework to scale), I would suggest the Zend Framework. You can use single parts of it, rewrite what you want, and it's far more than just a MVC implementation.
Update: A quick example of customization with Zend. If you don't want to use their MVC stack, but need something to route requests, you can just use Zend's router library. If you like the MVC stack, but hate the way the router works, you can just implement the interface and write your own router.
This applies outside the MVC stack as well. Zend has a ton of libraries for mail, rss feeds, caching, auth, db, etc. Use what you want, and ignore the rest. Extend what you want, most of the framework is tiered with interfaces/abstract/generalized classes that you can build on if the standard functionality doesn't suite your needs.
The decision is very plain and simple.
If you want to learn and have full control - go for your own
If you want just to make money fast - go for ready made one.
I work in a company that initially wrote its own framework, built by a guy that worked here. It was only used on one project. The reason for this is that we soon realized that although it was clever and very good, there was no documentation for it. So if we employ another developer or a freelance guy, they'd have to learn it.
We run with CakePHP for a while, which is popular, but it does seem a mess. We eventually settled on KohanaPHP. Easy to extend, some good documentation (probably not up there with some others though), nicely formatted code (meaning if you can't find documentation you can quickly work out whats going on). The way the framework is written makes it pretty easy for a developer to pick up and follow what is going on. Whereas we always had trouble doing this with CakePHP.
I think the only argument for rolling your own framework is that you may want some highly customised stuff. But Kohana is so easy to extend, you can just throw it in there. You don't have to use their packed libraries if you really don't want to.
That said, some project I don't bother with a framework at all, just some sort of routing solution, like GluePHP. Since it would be overkill to use a full stack framework.
If you were just trying to practice, I'd suggest writing your own. Otherwise, though, definitely go with using an existing one. Symfony ftw.
The short answer is symfony2 IHMO.
The reasons are:
do not reinvent the wheel
a good wheel is better than yours (others are professional wheel makers,
since a lot of time)
an OSS framework can be expanded or modified, even only inspected
first or later you will not have time to maintain your own wheel
a number of eyes and hands do it better than 2!
Of course the previous points are valid for a very small set of professionally made frameworks! My favorite is symfony2, but there are a number of good alternatives.
I've been a PHP developer for many years now, with many tools under my belt; tools that I've either developed myself, or free-to-use solutions that I have learned to trust.
I looked into CodeIgniter recently, and discovered that they have many classes and helper routines to aid with development, yet saw nothing in the examples that I couldn't do just as easily with my own tools. Simple things like DB abstractions, Email helpers, etc. There was some interesting code relating to routes - mapping urls to the right controllers; but even that's not particularly difficult to code yourself if you've ever written an MVC style web app with pretty urls.
Even after looking through some of the other popular frameworks, I still see nothing that would be that much of a time-saver. Even looking at the forums, I see people struggling to get the tools to work for them. I do understand how they would be more useful for junior developers, since full system design skills take a while to understand and appreciate fully.
Yet, I'm often told that I should use an off-the-shelf framework to produce my solutions, but I still remain unconvinced. What's the real benefit to someone like myself? Am I just being elitist, or is this a common opinion?
Edit: Looking at some of the answers here, should I perhaps consider packaging up my toolset as its very own framework, writing some documentation and posting tutorials? If I'm hesitant to take on other's frameworks, would opening it up and getting more eyes on it help to improve my own skills/tools?
Frameworks have several advantages:
You don't have to write everything. In your case, this is less of a help because you have your own framework which you have accumulated over the years.
Frameworks provide standardized and tested ways of doing things. The more users there are of a given framework, the more edge cases that have been encountered and coded for. Your own code may, or may not, be battle hardened in the same way.
Others can be recruited onto a project with a standard framework and have access to the documentation, examples and experience with that framework. Your own snippets may or may not be fully documented or have examples of use... but isn't much chance that others are comfortable with them initially.
EDIT:
With regards to your idea of packaging up your own framework, the benefit of cleaning it up for public consumption can be larger than the benefit of getting others to use it.
The reason is simple: you will have to re-evaluate your assumptions about each component, how they fit together and how clear each piece is to understand. Once you publish your framework, your success will be strongly dependent on how easy it is to get up and running with.
Big wins with little effort are essential for adoption (those wins will encourage people to delve further into the framework). Ruby on Rails in an example of a framework that gives such big wins with little effort, and then has hidden layers of features that would have overwhelmed someone just getting started. (The question of the quality of RoR apps is not the point, the point is about adoption speed).
After people adopt a framework, it is about the ease of continued use. Little details like consistent parameter use patterns make all the difference here. If one class has many parameters on every method, while another has setters that are expected to be called before invoking methods, you will lose users because they can't get a "feel" for what is expected in a given case without resorting to the documents.
If both ease-of-adoption and ease-of-living-with issues are addressed properly, you only have to get lucky for people to adopt your framework. If those issues are not addressed properly, even an initial interest in the framework will wane quickly. The reason is that there are many frameworks: you will need to stand out to gain the advantages of having others using your kit (as they rightfully are as wary of your framework as you are of others).
Here's another reason not to create your own framework. Linus' Law - "Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow". In other words, the more people who use a given framework, the more solid and bug-free it is likely to be.
Have you seen how many web frameworks there are for Java? Back in the day, it was fashionable for any half-decent developer/architect to write their own custom web framework. And at the end of the day, 95% of them looked like a custom implementation of Struts (the most popular Java web framework at the time). So they basically created a Struts clone that was: 1) proprietary; and 2) not as well documented and tested.
Let's face it - writing our own customer framework is fun, but what happens next? It becomes a maintenance burden to keep up with the framework yourself (or the poor soul who replaces you). And maintaining software is much, much more costly, especially when it comes to custom frameworks. Is the company in business to solve domain problems or in the business of maintaining frameworks?
I forget who said it, but I once heard a great quote - "The first rule to creating your own framework is: don't". Somebody else has probably gone through the effort of doing so and probably done the same work you would have done. Save yourself the time, effort, and testing.
There's many comments here as to the advantages of using a framework, and certainly I think in a good many cases they are perfectly correct.
HOWEVER
All frameworks come with the downside that they have a domain of problems that can be fitted into them. If your problem is well inside the scope of the domain then using a framework isn't an issue, and most of the time it's readily apparent if your problem is well outside the domain so you don't give it a thought. Issues arise when you try to force a problem into a framework that it just doesn't quite fit into or has some unusual non-standard feature - in which case you complete 90% of the code really fast then spend all the time you've saved figuring out how to bend or extend the framework so it can accomplish some obscure requirement. Because in these case your solution/extension has to plug into the framework it can often be more difficult to code than if you'd come to it independently.
In the wrong circumstances this can actually be disastrous. For example if a client asks for a project that you believe will fit into a framework solution and you quote accordingly, then after completing 90% you find the gotcha then you can be really up the creek, especially if it's some feature that the client is insistent upon (and it always is). These issues tend to arise because it is not always apparent from the word go where the gotchas might lie, particularly if you're using a framework you are less familiar with (and you have to from time to time).
This is really the same problem as arises with deploying any third party software in a project. Myself from experience I have no qualms about using frameworks or similar, but given the choice I will always go for the lightest, thinnest, wrapper I can find that will do what I need. That way I gain the advantages, whilst knowing that if issues do arise (and they are generally less likely to with a thinner wrapper) then figuring out how to work around them is likely to be simpler than learning an extensive code-base to the point where I can safely modify it.
The framework code is likely to be well-tested and relatively free of bugs. By using it you save yourself time testing/maintaining your own code to do the same thing.
And any time saved is good. Laziness pays off in programming.
One thing that you will be missing out on is all of the Validation that goes into a popular framework.
Your routines simply don't have the same exposure that the popular libraries have.
You may have a point.... however I wouldn't underestimate the power of many, as an example phpBB is as far as i'm concerned the bb solution to use. Why? Because there are many, many thousands of posts on their support boards and many people using it who are knowledgeable and can help people solve problems.
Therefore the only reason in your case to use a popular framework is the many others that use it, report bugs against it, fix it and support it. It'll be tricky to get the same coverage on your own libraries.
I would go against the grain here, and say, you should use your own custom framework, If the software you are building is the core of your business. As Joel would say, "Find the dependencies - and eliminate them". If you are just putting up a little website for your company, and you business isn't maintaining websites, then go ahead and use a framework. But when that website is your business, then you shouldn't depend on a framework from somebody else to let you get the job done.
I think the main reason is that when you use a common framework, there are a lot of people who are instantly familiar with your product.
Apart from that I think it's most important that whatever tools you use actually get the job done. If it happens to be familiar to other people, then that's a bonus.
I agree you should use your own custom framework. Not only is it easier for you to understand, but it provides the ultimate in job security!
Three reasons I can think of immediately:
A well-known framework will be familiar to other developers who may have to work on your project
A well-known framework will have resources like books, discussion boards, and other experts that can be used for finding out more information
Managers will often have a "don't reinvent the wheel" philosophy. In fact, existing solutions have probably solved the same problems that you'd discover if you create your own solution.
All of that said, there may still be a place for your own solutions. We wouldn't have so many frameworks (or scripting languages) to choose from if no one started something new.
Any experienced developer can build a framework -- the challenging part is convincing others that it's worth using. You'll need to create documentation and tutorials for it for those who plan to use or maintain it. You'll probably need to create a demo site to prove that its useful and actually works like it's supposed to.
That alone can be a considerable investment, not including bugs that could pop up in between. When its all said it done, it could be worth spending time learning another framework instead of making your own.
You mentioned CodeIgniter -- I personally feel like that's a pretty framework -- it doesn't get much more barebones than that.
What you essentially have is your own framework. So, it isn't a time-saver FOR YOU, because you have already spent the time to develop the framework. If you didn't have that to build from, it would certainly be easier and faster to use an existing framework than to roll your own.
What you need to look at is whether or not your framework is better than other options out there, and whether your familiarity with your own code outweighs having other eyes looking at it, and other people using it in enough different ways that the likelihood of any problems being found and corrected is much higher.
Also, if your framework is so much better than everyone elses', you might consider opening yours up to the community ;)
As you probably know: "time is money". So by using a popular framework with a lot of helpers, a lot of code examples on web and a big community you do more in less time.
Sometimes it if ok to use frameworks because you become more productive, but in some advanced and difficult projects it may happen so that the framework stays in your way and you have to find workarounds.
I think there is no definitive answer. You should put in balance the pros and cons and take the right decision for your project.
Usually I adopt popular frameworks very fast but not in critical parts of the projects and in time I extend their usage.
I think that if you don't see a need to use a framework then don't.
The reason I use a framework for example Django for python or Rails for Ruby or Webforms and MVC for ASP.net is because they make it easier and faster to write applications for them. In the case of Ruby and Python not using a framework for me would make me go crazy.
If you have something that works and don't see a need to use a framework I would say stick with what you feel is best. But, I would still keep up to date with frameworks.
I think they are more useful if you are starting from scratch and don't have the time to write your own. If you already have a codebase you developed over the years, they may be much less useful, but it may still be useful to take a look and see what they did.
For example, I am sure major game development shops are not using third-party tools, engines and frameworks, not because they are not sufficient, but they already have built their own since the 80's or whatever.
Plus, if you are using an off-the-shelf component, there is no way to exceed it in its particular area. If you need to be a market leader in a particular dimension, you should be building your own solution in that dimension, so you can lead. If you don't need this capability, using a third-party component that is just as good as yours may be a good solution as long as it is an easy transition. Time to train in the new tool and living with its idiosyncrasies may or may not be worth it though.
The other thing to consider is that if you can build something, you truly understand it. Otherwise, you don't. Now, you don't need to fully understand stuff to use them, so long as they "just work", but we all know how that goes... :)
Can you solve the problems you are given have with your code faster and more reliably than public frameworks?
If yes, then keep using your own.
If no, then find the framework that does a better job and run with it for that project.
It all comes down to which codebase gets the job done better(for the value of better given by the client. ;) )
Disadvantages.
Most frame works are not object orientated. (code igniter does show some promiss)
Most of the code is done via includes. trying to track down the problem is like pulling on a thread on a sweater, and having to unravel the entire garment to fully understand the creation.
Most frame works have poorly written documentation.
Most frame works try to do many many many things.
I find from my experience developing with frame works that it takes a good 3-6 months to get on top of the code base. And its only after that period of time that you will find out weather you are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. Given that most php projects want to be finished before that period has elapsed, it will cost employers more to get any project using a big "frame work" to fruition.
Many of the php Frame works were written for php 4, and were written in a different enviroment. They have been extended greatly, but are showing their origins. The use of global constraints is particularly prevalent. I am hoping that php 6 puts most of them to death. Code igniter escapes most of this, but it is new, and has object orientated parts.
Some frame works have written code that is not needed, and causes problems.. eg: CAKE has a most excellent model view controller, but its session handling is a disaster. Unfortunately frame works are not written in a modular way. Often its an all or nothing option.
MOst programers "hack" the frame work to get it to do what they want. This leaves future programers sractching their heads. It also makes "upgrading" the frame work a impossibility.
I have yet to see a frame work that implements unit testing. (how do you know that you have not broken it).
give me a well written object any time. At least them you know the scope right off the bat.
Advantages are that it's already written and tested by multiple people therefore less likely to be bug prone.
Disadvantages are that it's not built specifically for your application and therefore will most likely perform worse.
All in all, I can't really see much reason to use one considering you already have your own...although it may be worth releasing that open source so others are able to bug check and recommend improvements.
I'm in the process of designing a PHP-based content management system for personal use and eventually to be distributed. I know there are a lot of CMS's already out there, but I really haven't found one that meets my all of my needs and I also would like to have the learning experience. Security is a large focus, as are extensibility and ease of use. For those of you out there who have built your own CMS, what advice can you offer? What features are essential for a core? What are must have add-ons? What did you wish you knew before starting? What's the biggest potential roadblock/problem? Any and all advice is welcome.
Edit: Any advice on marketing do's and don't's would also be appreciated.
In building a few iterations of CMSs, some of the key things turned out to be:
Having a good rich text editor - end-users really don't want to do HTML. Consensus seems to be that FCKEditor is the best - there have been a couple of questions on this here recently
Allowing people to add new pages and easily create a menu/tab structure or cross-link between pages
Determining how to fit content into a template and/or allowing users to develop the templates themselves
Figuring out how (and whether) to let people paste content from Microsoft Word - converting magic quotes, emdashes and the weirdish Wordish HTML
Including a spellchecking feature (though Firefox has something built-in and iespell may do the job for IE)
Some less critical but useful capabilities are:
- Ability to dynamically create readable and SEO-friendly URLs (the StackOverflow way is not bad)
- Ability to show earlier versions of content after it's modified
- Ability to have a sandbox for content to let it be proofread or checked before release
- Handling of multiple languages and non-English/non-ASCII characters
Well, building your own CMS actually implies that it is not an enterprise-level product. What this means is that you will not be able to actually implement all features that make CMS users happy. Not even most features. I want to clarify that by CMS I actually mean a platform for creating web applications or web sites, not a blogging platform or a scaled-down version. From personal experience I can tell you the things I want most in a CMS.
1. Extensible - provide a clean and robust API so that a programmer can do most things through code, instead of using the UI
2. Easy page creation and editing - use templates, have several URLs for a single page, provide options for URL rewriting
3. Make it component-based. Allow users to add custom functionality. Make it easy for someone to add his code to do something
4. Make it SEO-friendly. This includes metadata, again URL rewriting, good sitemap, etc.
Now there are these enterprise features that I also like, but i doubt you'll have the desire to dive into their implementation from the beginning. They include workflow (an approval process for content-creation, customizable), Built-in modules for common functionality (blogs, e-commerce, news), ability to write own modules, permissions for different users, built-in syndication, etc.
After all I speak from a developer's point of view and my opinion might not be mainstream, so you have to decide on your own in the end. Just as ahockley said - you have to know why you need to build your own CMS.
If you ask 100 different CMS users about the most important thing about their CMS, you'll probably get 80+ different answers.
The biggest roadblock is probably going to be people asking you why you built a new CMS from scratch.
If you don't know the answer to that question, I'm not sure why you're going down this path.
One thing to keep in mind is that for an internet CMS, folks are going to want integration points with many of the "usual" services. Leverage existing services such as photo sharing sites, Twitter, OpenID and the like before building your own proprietary solutions.
well i wrote a CMS for personal use and released it to the biggest chorus of chirping crickets ever! no biggie, though. i did learn a lot and i encourage you to move forward. my clients use it and like it and it's holding up fine.
but if i were to start over (and i might) here's the advice i would give myself:
scrub everything everything everything entered from the user
user administration is a product differentiator. bonus points for being able to handle someone copy/pasting from WORD.
extensibility. 90% of the comments i get are from developers who want to use the cms to host "some" of the website pages but not others. or they want to embed their custom scripts into the page among the content. my next cms will be as modular as i possibly can handle.
many folks are absolutely fanatic about clean urls.
From marketing point of view:
1) Make it templateable.
2) Make CMS SEF and have SEOed URLs.
If you need to build custom functionality where your CMS is really a window to the rest of your business layers, then use something like PyroCMS or FuelCMS which are based off of CodeIgniter framework.
Developers usually get lost in the weeds with Drupal and Joomla! / Wordpress quickly become spaghetti code-laced doozies over time. Its how much you have already drank from the Kool-aid punch bowl.
I know this isn't a direct answer to what you're looking for but if you haven't looked at it yet I'd recommend checking out CMS made simple. It has much less bloat than other CMS's and is fast and efficient. It's open source so it may be a good reference point for any questions you will run into.
Just use Drupal.
Out of the box it is very light and fast. You add modules for virtually everything, so that can be daunting but it is fantastic.
Its secure (NASA and The White House use it), its modular, its open-source, it is well supported, has a reputation for clean APIs, and has hundreds of modules from SEO to Wysiwyg....