Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Book Review: MODx Revolution - Building the Web Your Way

samzenpus posted 1 year,15 days | from the read-all-about-it dept.

Books 70

First time accepted submitter matria writes "MODx is a free, open-source Content Management System and Framework, developed and supported by MODX LLC and a global community. The latest iteration of MODx, called Revolution, is entirely object-oriented. To take advantage of the power of MODx, the developer needs to learn how MODx works and how to use its building blocks to extend it to satisfy his purpose. While there is official documentation and a number of websites with tips and tutorials, as well as an active and friendly forum, for the dedicated developer one of the publications that it is good to be aware of is W. Shawn Wilkerson's MODX Revolution — Building the Web Your Way." Read below for the rest of matria's review.Known to the MODx community as "sottwell", I've been a developer and contributor to MODx since its beginnings, so I'm well-familiar with W. Shawn Wilkerson's contributions to the MODx community over the past six years. He is the founder of Sanity LLC, a technology integration company, and holds 9 degrees in programming and web design. His book on MODx Revolution, subtitled A Journey Through a Content Management Framework, was published in August of 2012 by Sanity Press, with ISBN 978-0985853204. It has some 600 pages, with 19 chapters divided into 5 sections.

This begins with the obligatory introduction to what MODx is (and is not). Use MODx as it installs for nearly instant, fully-functional sites, or turn it into a framework for complex web applications.

The second chapter introduces the Manager interface. This is an excellent place to start for new MODx users. We are taken step-by-step through the Manager, with each feature and function explained. Of special importance is the tree structure that lists the content Resources that provide the main content elements for each page, this tree structure reflecting the overall site structure.

Shawn explains how the Manager itself is built on the core MODx framework, and so it is customizable and even totally replaceable

The next five chapters discuss the basic building-block elements that are used to build a MODx site. The coverage of these elements is by no means superficial, everything from customizing the Manager forms for creating and editing them to how they are stored in the database to how to format and manipulate their final output on your web page is explained. Plenty of actual useful code samples and in-depth explanations make it easier to understand how MODx builds up a site using these modular blocks of content and content-generating elements. One entire chapter on Output Modifiers caught my attention here, as it covers a topic often overlooked or, conversely, overused.

The Quick Start chapter walks through the simple procedure to create a basic website after installing MODx, from a few basic System Settings such as a name for your site, through setting up the Template for your pages and assigning it to the Resources that will provide the main content for the pages, using Chunks, Snippets and Template Variables to add dynamic content to your pages, and installing and using third-party add-ons via the handy Package Manager. A complete site, with a dynamic menu structure, search functionality and a contact form can be set up in less than an hour, using any one of thousands of free HTML templates as the base Template.

The rest of this section goes on to show how common Web essentials such SEO, AJAX, friendly URLs and .js and .css minification can be easily arranged, to how a full-blown blogging platform can be added to your site with the Articles package.

One of the more frequent questions that comes up in the forums is how to use JQuery or other libraries, or how to handle AJAX in MODx. Basically, MODx doesn't interfere with your css or javascript in any way. But there are speed and optimization considerations in how and where Javascript links and code should be inserted, and MODx APIs can make processing AJAX requests or inserting data into Javascript functions clean and easy. A chapter on Javascript, CSS and JQuery works through several examples of how various features of MODx can be leveraged to automate best practices for everything from a simple JQuery slideshow to a complete AJAX-driven web application.

The MODx Revolution user management system is a complex network of users, user groups, roles and policies, based on the ACL model of user management. This section is vital to understanding how to control and manage user access to both protected sections of your front-end site and limit Manager functionality. With plenty of screen shots and examples, the reader is gently guided through the whole inter-related subject of organization and controls.

The chapter on Contexts explains how this feature can be used for dividing the site into sections. Contexts can be used to manage separate domains, allowing multiple websites to be managed from one MODx installation. They are also used to provide virtual subdomains or subdirectories for easy management of multi-language sites. Again, plenty of screen shots and examples open up the possibilities of using Contexts. Some of the limitations and pitfalls of using Contexts are explained and resolved.

Since this is not exactly a beginner's tutorial on OOP, the section begins with a brief overview of what OOP is, with some useful links to OOP and OOP in PHP tutorial sites. Then it continues by describing the fully object-oriented MODx Revolution API and the basic $modx object. MODx, like most CMS applications, relies heavily on the database, so there is an emphasis on understanding the database access methods and how MODx stores and caches data. Using the API simplifies just about every facet of MODx development, and the explanations and examples here make this a good reference to keep close at hand.

The foundation of MODx Revolution, the xPDO ORB/ORM object library, is extensively discussed. Coding best-practices are discussed. Real-world, complete, functioning and useful examples abound.

The section ends with how to install and use third-party add-on packages, and how to create your own packages.

Everything from MODx Revolution terminology through system settings and how the MODx parser works, ending with an interesting set of "rules", shared nuggets of hard-won programmer philosophy, make the Appendix another useful resource.

The book is clearly based on a deep understanding and love of programming, web development, and of MODx Revolution itself. One thing I especially appreciated about the layout of the book is the extra large font used for the code examples. It does't make for a pretty layout, but it's a great improvement in usablity over the usual prettier blocks of small, often hard-to-read text. This is even more significant when considering that Shawn is the founder and CEO of Sanity/Sanity Press. While typos and grammatical errors are common, this was understandably explained by the need to get such a book published and available before the fast movement of the web development world in general and MODx in particular make it at least partially obsolete. A year later, it's still covering material well within the leading edge of MODx Revolution functionality. The occasional personal ramblings actually give us an insight into Shawn's programming philosophy, and make the whole book seem more like a personal message, almost a conversation, than a cold presentation of facts. Overall, this is an excellent book, I very much enjoy it, use it, and recommend it.

You can purchase MODX Revolution - Building the Web Your Way: A Journey Through a Content Management Framework from amazon.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered


MODx website itself sucks donkey balls (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,15 days | (#43393809)

Doesn't work at all without javascript, which speaks volumes about the "quality" of the cms and the sites you can build with it. Why bother reading a book about a CMS that cannot even produce a usable site for its developers?

Re:MODx website itself sucks donkey balls (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,15 days | (#43394199)

This post contains information on MODx.

Re:MODx website itself sucks donkey balls (3, Insightful)

daveime (1253762) | 1 year,15 days | (#43395217)

Yeah, and I suppose you start your car every morning by asking the neighbours to help you bump start it ? Oh, no, wait, you use the starter motor ! Can we get past this "javascript is teh viruz" mentality from 1995 and just accept browsers need a functional scripting component to do *anything* useful.

Re:MODx website itself sucks donkey balls (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,15 days | (#43395645)

I think paper is a more apt analogy. For almost all of recorded history, the written word and pictures were fixed in media that required no processing power. Empires rose and fell with everything from bureaucratic detail to great oratory recorded on such media. On the chart of history there's a tiny sliver where it was even possible for common presentation to be "active". I'm not sure how many 9s of the scripts are useless or annoying; but it's several. The only legitimate use for them on most sites is to hack around differences in browsers. If the browsers were all standards compliant, we wouldn't even need that. Slashdot could be done quite nicely without JavaScript, although I'm sure it isn't simply "because we can".

Re:MODx website itself sucks donkey balls (1)

daveime (1253762) | 1 year,6 days | (#43475085)

Yes, it's a reasonable analogy. And now in 2012, people have e-readers and tablets. That's the point, technology moves on. Idiots who decry javascript for no other reason than "the web used to work without it". I bet the same idiots would complain about the invention of the printing press.

Re:MODx website itself sucks donkey balls (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#43398187)

I use public transportation, dimwit. No need to bump start anything at all, it just works.

Re:MODx website itself sucks donkey balls (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,15 days | (#43395539)

What browser are you using that doesn't have JavaScript?

Re:MODx website itself sucks donkey balls (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,15 days | (#43396557)

I'm guessing a comparatively secure one. Personally I use Firefox and only enable JavaScript for certain sites. Good websites will work without JavaScript. A poor websites doesn't work without JavaScript, but at least tells you. A website that doesn't do that is broken. A CMS that doesn't do that is a joke.

Re:MODx website itself sucks donkey balls (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#43398577)

A good JavaScript site can not work without JavaScript. That is.

Re:MODx website itself sucks donkey balls (1)

GPLHost-Thomas (1330431) | 1 year,14 days | (#43397445)

What speaks volumes about the "quality" of the CMS is how much time it can stay on your web server without being hacked. Answer: not so long... This "thing" is full of security holes. About one hole every 2 or 3 months, recently. STAY AWAY!

Oh great... (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,15 days | (#43393839)

...yet another "revolutionary" cms. This one uses [[*SOMEVAR]] for template placeholders, instead of the now rudimentary [[?SOMEVAR]] or [[>SOMEVAR]] used by other obsolete cms'es.
Also, nice ad.

Re:Oh great... (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,15 days | (#43393963)

That's what I thought - reads more like a press release than a "review".

I'm sorry. (1)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | 1 year,15 days | (#43393875)

If you can't even bother to drop a few "RESTful"'s in your review, I'm not sure we can take you seriously.

How exactly does this CMS help me DRY my cloud?

Re:I'm sorry. (1)

matria (157464) | 1 year,15 days | (#43394683)

It's a CMS. By default it manages content. Add whatever functionality you like, DRY up and give it a REST or whatever you want. That's what the API is for.

Re:I'm sorry. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,15 days | (#43396729)

I lol'd. :-)

Less buzzwords, more substance, please? (0)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | 1 year,15 days | (#43393929)

"The latest iteration of MODx, called Revolution, is entirely object-oriented."

Even setting aside the fact that regardless of what it means for you, and that in the strictest sense imaginable, this would be very difficult to achieve in most PLs, PHP included, this sounds like a statement from the same category as "our software uses memory" or "our software has a user interface". It doesn't actually tell you *anything*, does it?

Re:Less buzzwords, more substance, please? (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,15 days | (#43394129)

Any CMS, plugin, widget, app, template, theme, API, etc that touts itself as open source but has a "professional" version has historically given me nothing but headaches (in web development anyway). The open source is their marketing and the "professional" is their product. Their job is to make sure you need to move from their marketing to their product. Usually you'll never see it until you're in the middle of a project trying to do some common thing X or obvious thing Y and are told "sorry, that is only for PRO users".

Good luck.

Re:Less buzzwords, more substance, please? (2)

matria (157464) | 1 year,15 days | (#43394227)

There is no "Professional" version of MODx. Evolution (1.x) is the original code base, Revolution (2.x) is a complete rewrite with a new codebase. Both are free. Both have hundreds of free third-party add-ons.

Re:Less buzzwords, more substance, please? (1)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | 1 year,15 days | (#43394295)

"The latest iteration of MODx, called Revolution, is entirely object-oriented."

Even setting aside the fact that regardless of what it means for you, ..., this sounds like a statement from the same category as "our software uses memory" or "our software has a user interface". It doesn't actually tell you *anything*, does it?

I'd like to add that "object-oriented" doesn't necessarily make a product better.

Re:Less buzzwords, more substance, please? (1)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | 1 year,15 days | (#43394903)

Yes, and for pity's sake no more frameworks. You know those things have started to become part of job application requirements? You can know the underlying codebase back to front but if you aren't familiar with whatever arbitrary shorthand the developers mashed together for the latest and greatest, you're out of luck. And rarely do they add much to any project except bloat, with a few notable exceptions like jquery-style interpretations. Bootstrap: CSS made simple! How in the name of god can you make CSS any simpler? Argh!

Re:Less buzzwords, more substance, please? (1)

mutube (981006) | 1 year,15 days | (#43395259)

Bootstrap: CSS made simple!

It makes a lot more sense if you interpret "simple" to mean "generic".

Entirely object-oriented. (1)

mutube (981006) | 1 year,15 days | (#43395249)

Well, there's one big object will all of the functions in it.

That's OO right?

Re:Entirely object-oriented. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#43397523)

That sentence doesn't even make sense...


Anonymous Coward | 1 year,15 days | (#43393973)

Just when you thought it was safe to get back on the world wild web it STRIKES !!


That's right !! Not a damn thing !! Come back tomorrow for ZERO DAY + 1 !!

Argh (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,15 days | (#43393985)

My brain was unable to properly categorize this post. What language is this MODx thing built on? Is it a cool language like C, Perl or Python? Or a potentially hip thing with Javascript? Or is it built on something that makes me cringe, like ASP? Does it run on Unix? Node? Apache? Microsoft? The "Cloud"?

Without knowing any of these things, I'm not sure how to categorize this story, and I can't decide if I want to read this to learn or to condescend.

Oh wait ... "He is the founder of Sanity LLC, a technology integration company, and holds 9 degrees in programming and web design.". There it is. It's condescend.

Re:Argh (2)

matria (157464) | 1 year,15 days | (#43394451)

It's a book review, not a review of MODx. And I would think that a book review should mention the credentials of the author.

Re:Argh (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,15 days | (#43394813)

One would expect a book review to introduce the subject of the book on a level suitable for the intended audience, too. The summary reads like a marketing blurb that could be used to describe Zope, Plone, ExpressionEngine, Cascade, or almost any other member of the long list of CMS - many of which are purely OO and have been around for years.

Personally, from a programmers perspective I think it would be far more interesting if it was built in something like Haskell (a functional language), than object oriented. There are OO CMS's aplenty.

Re:Argh (1)

jschottm (317343) | 1 year,14 days | (#43398283)

I believe part of the point is that anyone who brags about having nine degrees (with very, very few exceptions) is full of it. Not that they're lying but that the degrees that they hold are basically worthless. I've worked with some of the top engineering professors in their fields - they typically have two to four degrees, at least one of which is a PhD. Having nine associates degrees (err, certificates) is kind of like having 9 white belts from different martial arts schools. Bragging about it shows a lack of understanding of the value of education.

Kind of like "Instrumental in the development and implementation of 3ringmetals.com to brand the name of the worlds largest manufacturer of ring metals into the single dominating force on the internet..."

Re:Argh (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,15 days | (#43395089)

But is has electrolytes, what your code craves.

Re:Argh (1)

jrumney (197329) | 1 year,15 days | (#43396469)

For me, the phrase in the first paragraph "To take advantage of the power of MODx, the developer needs to learn how MODx works" was enough clue. But the "9 degrees in programming and web design" really had me chuckling.

Re:Argh (1)

blibbo (928752) | 1 year,14 days | (#43398511)

holds 9 degrees in programming and web design.

The "9 degrees" in the summary seems to be sourced from his linked in page:

Daytona State College
AS, Computer Programming and Analysis - Software Engineering, Internet Services Technology

2006 – 2011

9 Computer & Internet Degrees/Certificates With Honors

http://www.linkedin.com/in/wshawnwilkerson [linkedin.com]

... which is marginally more precise than the summary: 9 pieces of paper from a University. Not all are degrees.

Picking a CMS (1)

LiavK (2867503) | 1 year,15 days | (#43394123)

I just finished a hand-coded revision to my personal website. It's small and modest and after going at it for about a week, it was clearly time to switch over to a CMS.

This is the fourth one I've come across that comes highly recommended (see also, Stacey, Bootstrap, and, obviously, Wordpress). What are the differentiators? How do you decide?

Re:Picking a CMS (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,15 days | (#43394177)

I recently rediscovered Wordpress and find it much easier to work with than Drupal, Joomla or Xoops. It's not the best, but it's the best for what I'm working on right now. YMMV

Re:Picking a CMS (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#43397501)

To each their own.

(At least you didn't whine and cry about PHP or some other elitist BS. But the more CMS stuff you do, the more you'll realize that Drupal has what you need. Give it another try someday.)

Re:Picking a CMS (1)

Synerg1y (2169962) | 1 year,15 days | (#43394189)

I'm sure if you take the time to read the product features and compare them side by side you can answer your own question on differentiators.

Most business decisions in regards to CMS are a functionality vs implementation / licensing cost.

I know most people absolutely hate it, but I like Sitefinity... maybe because i know some of the framework, but seriously it's cheap... in your case it might be free if you're non-commercial, and it behaves like a web application meaning devs can extend it infinitely, though it's got a few wtfs.

Re:Picking a CMS (2)

Mikkeles (698461) | 1 year,15 days | (#43394197)

What are the differentiators? How do you decide?

You 'Ask Slashdot' and of the 217 responses you'll get 495 opinions, an Apple flamefest, a Google flamefest, 3 links to goatse, and the three responses that would actually be helpful to you marked as Troll.

No, I'm neither bitter nor cynical!

Re:Picking a CMS (1)

CrashNBrn (1143981) | 1 year,15 days | (#43394213)

All CMS's will come "highly-recommended" from someone.

The most interesting CMS's I've seen are Concrete5 and ProcessWire.

The biggest pain-in-the-ass has been Joomla --- funny that it's one of the most popular of the bunch.

Re:Picking a CMS (1)

nickittynickname (2753061) | 1 year,15 days | (#43394829)

Well I can reduce one for you. Bootstrap isn't a cms. Its a UI framework (all css and javascript) that helps you get up and running quickly. The other CMS's are fine if you already know them and can work within their scope of how they intend people use them. You tend to start fighting the system soon as you do something out of their examples. If you have a small and modest website why do you think you need a cms?

Re:Picking a CMS (1)

LiavK (2867503) | 1 year,15 days | (#43395139)

I'd like to continue growing it out and developing it. I definitely need to transition it to, at the minimum, a template based system, if not a full CMS. Hand-coding the html/css is a good way to understand the subtles of the box model, responsive design, etc, but it doesn't scale. L

Re:Picking a CMS (1)

rueger (210566) | 1 year,15 days | (#43395507)

If you're "hand-coding" a modest personal site, then by all means go with WordPress. I've mucked about with Joomla and Drupal and a few others, including some custom designed stupidly complex sites, and for small sites Wordpress is just SOOO easy and fast that it wins hands down.

Plus it's really easy to customize, plus there are lots of good quality plug-ins.

Obviously you're not going to launch the next Amazon.com using Wordpress, but for 99% of small sites there's little reason to look elsewhere.

Great forums and other support options too.

Moar (1)

Tailhook (98486) | 1 year,15 days | (#43394251)

More tools to efficiently create more sites for fewer actual visitors.

Go to the gallery [modx.com] (it doesn't hurt, really.) Sort by "Rank". Note that you've never seen any of these sites. Scroll down, noting that the thumbnails repeat (...) after 6 rows for a total of 24 unique sites.

Which is pretty good, considering how many [wikipedia.org] distinct CMS tools against which all high "Rank" sites must be amortized.

One day something important will happen and the Western world is going to have to stop making so many web sites. And that sucks, because I think every brand and line of lingerie should have a complete site with lots of models, rebuilt from scratch every 18 to 36 days.

So in the mean time, yay for CMS tools.

Re:Moar (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,15 days | (#43394825)

Yeah, and be sure to make this mistake of clicking on Rich Goldberg's piano tuning site. It plays music immediately. You have to scroll down to find out how to STOP THE FUCKING MUSIC. Yeah, you're a music site, terrific. That doesn't mean we want to hear music just because we visited your page. We especially don't want to have to scroll down to make it stop. When will they ever learn? The truly advanced CMS would send out a text to Russian mafia hit men automaticly if you do this. Trainees, who may or may not kill you and might just permanently mame you instead; but they do it for the love of killing. It's best when it's done for free, like open source.

Did not like it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,15 days | (#43394373)

Another CMS that sticks all your HTML AND PHP code inside a database. I found it incredibly hard to work with.

Re:Did not like it. (1)

matria (157464) | 1 year,15 days | (#43394409)

Doesn't have to be. Everything can be "static"; all that goes in the database is the path to the files. Most PHP add-ons only have a basic stub in the database; everything else is in files.

More PHP (1)

keltor (99721) | 1 year,15 days | (#43394439)

Oh wow! Just what I needed, yet another CMS built in PHP that requires MySQL as the database backend. If I really wanted to be pained by that, I'd use concrete5. In reality, I'd choose Radiant, typo or refinery LONG before I'd choose anything PHP developed.

Re:More PHP (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,15 days | (#43394539)


Re:More PHP (1)

keltor (99721) | 1 year,15 days | (#43395251)

http://me.veekun.com/blog/2012/04/09/php-a-fractal-of-bad-design/ [veekun.com] http://tnx.nl/php.jpg [tnx.nl] http://www.quora.com/PHP/Why-is-PHP-hated-by-so-many-developers [quora.com] It's a bad horrible language, and why should I or anyone else be forced to use it.

Re:More PHP (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#43397491)

Whoever said you were forced to use it? Don't like it? Don't use it. It's that simple.

Don't go running around like a little baby girl who just had her bah-bah stolen just because you don't like something that is clearly wining over people. Go pucker your wittle wip somewhere else.

Re:More PHP (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#43399361)

Oh c'mon, you know it's cool to hate php, all the cool kids are doing it. And it actually makes you smarter.

Re:More PHP (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,15 days | (#43396515)

I've looked a bit deeper into the DBO layer. I am very far from impressed. There is no way to be charitable about only supporting MySQL, and PHP is a cross to bear in the best of circumstances. But check this out:

http://rtfm.modx.com/display/xPDO20/The+xPDO+Constructor [modx.com]

First arg is an array masquerading as a string. Way to go there. The username and password may be omitted, because that's always a good idea. The fourth parameter accepts at least 30 options, supplied as an array of class constants. The last argument is any crap you might want to pass to PDO -- one presumes an equal opportunity for havoc may be contained therein.

This pretty much guarantees that you will need to extend the constructor in messy, duplicative, hard to test fashion. And the example given is just that. Let's compare that to something else:
class AbstractModel ActiveRecord::Base

Aight, that wasn't fair. Really, I would continue reading this API, but doing so is making me feel ill. The quality of the documentation does seem to be good; I wish that the author had applied his talents to worthier causes.

Not a bad CMS, Very flexible (1)

Ramley (1168049) | 1 year,15 days | (#43394977)

I have a client who wanted to implement ModX (Evolution, the prequel to Revolution). I took a look at it for them, and found it to be very simple to work with, and was quite flexible to be able to do what you needed with it.

It has its own coding standards, and allows for static templates or DB storage for HTML. It's definitely easier to use/customize than Joomla, and some of the other (more popular) CMS's. Out of the box, it just works, and works well.

Would I recommend it for everyone? Definitely not. I would compare its ease-of-use to WordPress, but I tend to like it better... if for no other reason than its not WordPress.

Just my simple 2 ... it's worth a look.

Re:Not a bad CMS, Very flexible (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#43397595)

DB storage for HTML

Why the fuck would anyone ever want to do that?

Criticism from a past MODx user (4, Interesting)

YurB (2583187) | 1 year,15 days | (#43395063)

I was using MODx Revolution for around two years, and it has many good sides, about which you can read on their website, in the books they published and in their wiki. But there are also some issues that led me to seeking an alternative now. MODx developers, please take this as an attempt of constructive criticism (and sorry for my imperfect English).

  • Too much is stored in the db, and that makes it very hard to work with git. Even with the 'static elements' functionallity one must have the actual 'element' in the database even if the code is stored in a file.
  • Poor performance of the backend. The backend is implemented entirely on ExtJS and is slow. Despite it's ExtJS it still requires to reload the page too often.
  • Very hard to develop own stuff on top of it. Just take a look at the tutorial on creating an extension [modx.com] (called 'extra'). I've developed different 'extras' to implement custom functionality in my projects, and I constantly had the feeling that they just made simple things much overcomplicated.
  • Poor documentation. Just take a look on their API docs [modx.com] . For example, the documentation for the modX::addExtensionPackage() function just says: "Add an extension package to MODX", and no information on the arguments besides what types they are.
  • Some serious problems in the core. For example, the widely used function modX::getChunk() has a performance bottleneck and can't be used in anything like, for instance, displaying a big list of products on a page, despite that this is exactly what it's for. If one instead reuses a same chunk object to iterate through a set of DB records (using $chunk->process()), the performance is dramatically increased. This issue has been reported on the forums, but didn't catch much attention (I can't even find the thread now.) The getChunk() function is widely used in some very important modx extensions, and yet the performance bottleneck doesn't seem to bother to the MODx community.

This isn't the full list. This is just some random (but major) inconveniences I can recall right now. To me, MODx is a great idea which for some reason wasn't implemented well.

Re:Criticism from a past MODx user (1)

jackd (64557) | 1 year,14 days | (#43398641)

I was using MODx Revolution for around two years, [..] But there are also some issues that led me to seeking an alternative now. MODx developers

So what did you end up using instead?

Re:Criticism from a past MODx user (1)

YurB (2583187) | 1 year,14 days | (#43399067)

I'm using Wordpress on a few personal blog-like projects but I think I'll stick at Drupal as my main platform, because my main requirement is flexibility and modularity. I'm currenly trying to build a blank html5boilerplate-based theme in drupal to see how it goes. And what do you use?

Re:Criticism from a past MODx user (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#43398991)

I also used MODx Rev in the past and I confirm all that, especially the slowness of the backend. It could take up to 3 seconds (!) to reload a page locally.

Re:Criticism from a past MODx user (1)

epo001 (558061) | 1 year,14 days | (#43399071)

I too was an early MODx user, enthusiastic but clueless is the best I can say about the "community" at that time, while MODx developers embodied all that is bad about open source dogmatists, accepting mediocrity and only ever working on stuff they find interesting or cool but neglecting things like documentation, usability and quality and having no care for timescales. And its not even as though they developed it, they just forked etomite and fiddled around a bit. Like children, these amateurs (in the worst sense of the word) strut and pride themselves on their trivial achievements.

I gave up using MODx (before Revolution) because I needed to get things done and it wasn't ever going to improve on a reasonable timescale, unsurprised to hear that nothing has changed. Avoid.

Re:Criticism from a past MODx user (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#43408419)

I'm not sure what the backend is but it is *NOT* ExtJS. ExtJS is a front-end JavaScript library.

Re:Criticism from a past MODx user (1)

YurB (2583187) | 1 year,13 days | (#43411455)

I'm sorry, I misused the term 'backend'. I meant their so-called 'manager' interface, i.e. the admin panel. It uses ExtJS [modx.com] .

Confluence Clone (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 days | (#43397797)

It is a clone / extension of Confluence [atlassian.com] .
Could be useful as Atlassian stuffed up Confluence big time [atlassian.com] with the v4 release where they killed wiki markup and replaced it with a WYSIWYG editor [atlassian.com] .

Re:Confluence Clone (1)

matria (157464) | 1 year,14 days | (#43398097)

That's beyond ignorant, it's just silly. MODx uses Confluence and Jira for its documentation and bug tracking; as a free Open Source project it got a free Confluence account.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account