Integrating mailman with joomla/mambo
Hi
Has anyone done this? If so how successful? How about username/password integration? It would be really great to have mailman as a joomla/mambo module If not does anyone have any ideas how to go about this? I am posting a similar question in the joomla forum
David
On Monday 23 April 2007 03:51:49 David Southwell wrote:
Hi
Has anyone done this? If so how successful? How about username/password integration? It would be really great to have mailman as a joomla/mambo module If not does anyone have any ideas how to go about this? I am posting a similar question in the joomla forum
David I have received one encouraging reply from Brian on the Joomla Integration forum who says:
The only thing I have seen is this module for subscribing http://forge.joomla.org/sf/frs/do/viewRelease/projects.gesellix/frs.mailman_ subscripe.2_4 This module handles subscriptions to the mailman maillists within a joomla module. A little bit more would be really great but this is well worth looking at -- this module may be capable of being extended.
david
At 3:51 AM -0700 4/23/07, David Southwell wrote:
Has anyone done this?
Yes.
If so how successful?
Pretty successful.
How about username/password integration?
Hard to say. I know people who've done it (e.g., Curtis Preston), but I have not done it myself.
It would be really great to have mailman as a joomla/mambo module If not does anyone have any ideas how to go about this? I am posting a similar question in the joomla forum
If you search the FAQ Wizard for "joomla", or "content management systems", or "web board discussion systems", or "PHP", or "forum", or various related terms then you should come across FAQ 1.26. So far as I know, that is the latest information we have on this subject.
If you had already searched the FAQ Wizard on these subjects, please let us know what search terms you used that did *not* pull up FAQ 1.26, and we'll try to get it modified to suit.
If you have any more information to add to that FAQ entry, please feel free to make your own contribution (using the instructions provided in the FAQ Wizard itself) and let us know.
-- Brad Knowles <brad@shub-internet.org>, Consultant & Author LinkedIn Profile: <http://tinyurl.com/y8kpxu> Slides from Invited Talks: <http://tinyurl.com/tj6q4>
On Monday 23 April 2007 09:17:44 Brad Knowles wrote:
At 3:51 AM -0700 4/23/07, David Southwell wrote:
Has anyone done this?
Yes.
If so how successful?
Pretty successful.
How about username/password integration?
Hard to say. I know people who've done it (e.g., Curtis Preston), but I have not done it myself.
It would be really great to have mailman as a joomla/mambo module If not does anyone have any ideas how to go about this? I am posting a similar question in the joomla forum
If you search the FAQ Wizard for "joomla", or "content management systems", or "web board discussion systems", or "PHP", or "forum", or various related terms then you should come across FAQ 1.26. So far as I know, that is the latest information we have on this subject.
If you had already searched the FAQ Wizard on these subjects, please let us know what search terms you used that did *not* pull up FAQ 1.26, and we'll try to get it modified to suit.
If you have any more information to add to that FAQ entry, please feel free to make your own contribution (using the instructions provided in the FAQ Wizard itself) and let us know.
Yes I did read the FAQ but what was written there was not really specific enough. I did not want to be too critical of the FAQ so I did not mention what I had seen there when I originally posted.. but maybe that was remiss of me.
There was a interesting aside about some work done by Scot Harris but no link to him e or to the software mentioned or even an indication that the results of his work are available in the public domain. The implication of the FAQ was a need to look elsewhere for a generic solution for providing a module giving a full integration for Joomla and mailman. What the FAQ did do was to reinforce what I knew.. that such integration was possible.. but took me no further towards actually doing it.
Unfortunately, as in many other places, the FAQ, whilst providing many apparently hopeful mentions, which can be very useful in some instances, it seems that there have not been enough informed contributions. This means the work does not, in many places, have sufficient specific follow ups. Perhaps this is an indication that those of us who are new to mailman might perhaps pay more attention to turning the results of our learning experience into well written contributions that improve the quality of the FAQ over time.
Do not get me wrong-- I have found the FAQ can be really useful at times, but
the Mailman FAQ is a bit of a curates egg. Sometimes it seems like an FAQ but
it often seems more like a personal blog rather than a well focused piece of
work, written to a consistent, disciplined standard, giving comprehensive
step by step instructions in response to very specific and well crafted
questions.
My two pennorth with a big thank you to everyone who has got it to the current level.
david
At 10:55 AM -0700 4/23/07, David Southwell wrote:
There was a interesting aside about some work done by Scot Harris but no link to him e or to the software mentioned or even an indication that the results of his work are available in the public domain.
What I put in the FAQ is still the last word I heard from Curtis, and my understanding is that he helped fund an important step forward in the area of integrating Joomla! and Mailman. I have not heard of any new information on this front.
If you have more recent information in this area, or know of someone who does, please feel free to update the FAQ and let us know.
If you've got better contact with Curtis than I do, and you can drag out of him more detail than I've been able to get so far, then please do go ahead and update the FAQ entry.
The implication of the FAQwas a need to look elsewhere for a generic solution for providing a module giving a full integration for Joomla and mailman. What the FAQ did do was to reinforce what I knew.. that such integration was possible.. but took me no further towards actually doing it.
My understanding is that this is still a pretty raw area. Mailman itself does not provide any hooks to assist with this process, so there's a limit to how much we can help. If there are any tools out there to help integrate CMSes with Mailman, the unfortunate fact is that the authors of those tools have not coordinated well with the Mailman project, and they have not let us know about the work they've done.
Unfortunately, as in many other places, the FAQ, whilst providing many apparently hopeful mentions, which can be very useful in some instances, it seems that there have not been enough informed contributions.
We've done the best we can based on what anecdotal information we can gather, but that's always going to be a hit-or-miss proposition. If the authors of the tools don't coordinate with us, there's not much we can do about that.
This means thework does not, in many places, have sufficient specific follow ups. Perhaps this is an indication that those of us who are new to mailman might perhaps pay more attention to turning the results of our learning experience into well written contributions that improve the quality of the FAQ over time.
That would certainly be a good step forward, yes. However, it is a community-supported document, and if the community does not choose to put the effort into doing the work necessary to keep it up-to-date and filled with as much useful information as possible, then we will all suffer.
I've certainly done as much as I can to contribute to the FAQ Wizard, both in terms of generating content itself as well as providing editorial assistance to try to make things as easy to understand as I can. But I'm only one person. We need more people to do the same kind of thing, or the FAQ will die -- probably a slow death, but perhaps much faster than would otherwise be expected.
Do not get me wrong-- I have found the FAQ can be really useful at times, but the Mailman FAQ is a bit of a curates egg. Sometimes it seems like an FAQ but it often seems more like a personal blog rather than a well focused piece of work, written to a consistent, disciplined standard, giving comprehensive step by step instructions in response to very specific and well crafted questions.
Yeah, well -- you get what you pay for.
Pay tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars per year, and maybe you can get a good professional author to spend their entire life to make the FAQ a world-class document, the equal to which cannot be found anywhere else in the world.
Otherwise, this is the kind of thing you can expect to get.
-- Brad Knowles <brad@shub-internet.org>, Consultant & Author LinkedIn Profile: <http://tinyurl.com/y8kpxu> Slides from Invited Talks: <http://tinyurl.com/tj6q4>
On Monday 23 April 2007 17:22:00 Brad Knowles wrote:
At 10:55 AM -0700 4/23/07, David Southwell wrote:
There was a interesting aside about some work done by Scot Harris but no link to him e or to the software mentioned or even an indication that the results of his work are available in the public domain.
What I put in the FAQ is still the last word I heard from Curtis, and my understanding is that he helped fund an important step forward in the area of integrating Joomla! and Mailman. I have not heard of any new information on this front.
If you have more recent information in this area, or know of someone who does, please feel free to update the FAQ and let us know.
If you've got better contact with Curtis than I do, and you can drag out of him more detail than I've been able to get so far, then please do go ahead and update the FAQ entry.
The implication of theFAQ was a need to look elsewhere for a generic solution for providing a module giving a full integration for Joomla and mailman. What the FAQ did do was to reinforce what I knew.. that such integration was possible.. but took me no further towards actually doing it.
My understanding is that this is still a pretty raw area. Mailman itself does not provide any hooks to assist with this process, so there's a limit to how much we can help. If there are any tools out there to help integrate CMSes with Mailman, the unfortunate fact is that the authors of those tools have not coordinated well with the Mailman project, and they have not let us know about the work they've done.
Unfortunately, as in many other places, the FAQ, whilst providing many apparently hopeful mentions, which can be very useful in some instances, it seems that there have not been enough informed contributions.
We've done the best we can based on what anecdotal information we can gather, but that's always going to be a hit-or-miss proposition. If the authors of the tools don't coordinate with us, there's not much we can do about that.
This meansthe work does not, in many places, have sufficient specific follow ups. Perhaps this is an indication that those of us who are new to mailman might perhaps pay more attention to turning the results of our learning experience into well written contributions that improve the quality of the FAQ over time.
That would certainly be a good step forward, yes. However, it is a community-supported document, and if the community does not choose to put the effort into doing the work necessary to keep it up-to-date and filled with as much useful information as possible, then we will all suffer.
I agree - you do a lot - I think it helps encourage people to make positive contributions to the FAQ when your contributions regret the lack of specificity in a particular FAQ.
I've certainly done as much as I can to contribute to the FAQ Wizard, both in terms of generating content itself as well as providing editorial assistance to try to make things as easy to understand as I can. But I'm only one person. We need more people to do the same kind of thing, or the FAQ will die -- probably a slow death, but perhaps much faster than would otherwise be expected.
I agree -- and have also noted that responses are more positive when you quote
extracts from particular FAQ's on the lines of "you might find this useful
[extract] - it is from FAQ [#]".
Do not get me wrong-- I have found the FAQ can be really useful at times, but the Mailman FAQ is a bit of a curates egg. Sometimes it seems like an FAQ but it often seems more like a personal blog rather than a well focused piece of work, written to a consistent, disciplined standard, giving comprehensive step by step instructions in response to very specific and well crafted questions.
Yeah, well -- you get what you pay for.
Well we all contribute a bit in this open source world and the success of open source is IMHO largely due to the fact we are able to be openly critical about the results while being simultaneously encouraging to other contributors within the community.
Pay tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars per year, and maybe you can get a good professional author to spend their entire life to make the FAQ a world-class document, the equal to which cannot be found anywhere else in the world.
Otherwise, this is the kind of thing you can expect to get.
IMHO some of the best FAQ's are to be found in the Open Source World and many of the worst come from over highly paid professionals with too much attention to hype and too little devotion to meeting end user requirements. The advantage of open source world is that the best contributions are crafted with care and passion and not with a focus on self interest. my 2 pennorth david
At 3:58 AM -0700 4/24/07, David Southwell wrote:
IMHO some of the best FAQ's are to be found in the Open Source World and many of the worst come from over highly paid professionals with too much attention to hype and too little devotion to meeting end user requirements.
Pretty much by definition, FAQs and all things like them come from the community, and they usually tend to be solely supported by the community. As such, it makes sense that the Free/Libre/Open-Source Software (FLOSS) community would be responsible for producing some of the best FAQs around, since they're probably one of the biggest and most active communities around.
The advantage of open source world is that the best contributions are crafted with care and passion and not with a focus on self interest.
Right, but there's a difference between a FAQ and a definitive O'Reilly book.
What we've got today is the FAQ. What you're asking for is the O'Reilly book.
While there are people in this community who have the technical knowledge that would be required to produce an O'Reilly book, there are few people in the world who make good technical writers, and there are damn few technical writers who are O'Reilly-quality. I know that I'm not O'Reilly quality.
When it comes to Mailman, there is no known overlap between the people who have the necessary technical knowledge and the people who have the necessary technical writing talent & skills.
If you have information otherwise, please say so. I'm sure that Barry and others will be relieved to know that someone else is taking care of this issue.
-- Brad Knowles <brad@shub-internet.org>, Consultant & Author LinkedIn Profile: <http://tinyurl.com/y8kpxu> Slides from Invited Talks: <http://tinyurl.com/tj6q4>
David Southwell writes:
the Mailman FAQ is a bit of a curates egg. Sometimes it seems like an FAQ but it often seems more like a personal blog
That's a FAQ. Excerpts from mailing list posts, with those questions that are most frequently answered gradually acquiring improved wording and more references.
rather than a well focused piece of work, written to a consistent, disciplined standard, giving comprehensive step by step instructions in response to very specific and well crafted questions.
That's an O'Reilly Nutshell book. :-)
A good idea, but who's going to bell the cat?
participants (3)
-
Brad Knowles -
David Southwell -
Stephen J. Turnbull