22972 Posts in 11596 Topics by 2824 members
|Go to End|
23 July 2012 at 2:56pm Last edited: 23 July 2012 3:07pm
I am both PHP and SS newbie; built one SS site using 2.4 version. Recently, I got a new project and thought I would like to take this chance to try out SS3.
One thing that I found, the 'Pages' user interface is very buggy; there are some occasions in which pages being dragged (ordered), hidden from menu, put under another page, but won't update correctly. There are also small issues such thumbnails does not work on ModelAdmin, plural_name typos and can't limit "Description" field; doesn't really matter to me but it does not look professional to Client.
I found the buggy "Pages" are deal breaker since I can't afford my Client to be upset since he is the one going to be using it.
Was wondering whether anyone had used SS3 for production sites? Before going into further development, I would like to know whether I should wait for the fix in upcoming months or should I migrate to more stable 2.4 instead?
23 July 2012 at 6:24pm
I've just deployed my first batch on SS3. Though all of them have clients who never really use the CMS (only to change odd content) or the site simply uses the framework (which is such a huge improvement!). If your client uses the CMS a lot I'd recommend 2.4 for a while but if you're looking to help contribute back to SilverStripe (and have a forgiving client) stick to 3.0 and report any issues to open.silverstripe.org for the core team to look into.
24 July 2012 at 12:17am
Yes, my Client is going to be the one using it. I really can't decide whether I should forgo all the goodness that came with SS 3.0 with more stable UI in 2.4........................
25 July 2012 at 12:04pm
Whether you continue to use SS3 or go back to 2.4 is up to you but if you have specific issues you want fixed, it's a really good idea to raise those issues in Trac (http://open.silverstripe.org/) as it's very likely they will be fixed, and usually quite quickly if they are critical bugs.
PLUS...3.0.1 comes out today, which contains a number of important bug fixes. Just go with what's best for you for now...perhaps if you give your client the 2.4 and then later provide them with a 'free' upgrade to 3.0.x which will give you some good experience (quite a few developers like to do that)?
Let us know if we can help you with something else.
25 July 2012 at 8:03pm
My personal opinion is that 3.0.0 is not ready for production use. It still contains a lot of bugs and using the back end feels like walking through honey.
3.0.1 is a step in the right direction, but I think that there are still things left to do until it is ready for an end user.
My recommendation: Deploy 2.4, run a 3.0 locally and help making it better by reporting bugs (and maybe even fixing some).
31 July 2012 at 10:52am
I've decided to use SilverStripe 3 for a medium-sized project I'm currently working on, mainly because I've read ModelAdmin got a face lift.
Even though I've developed a lot of sites with older SS versions, I find 3.0 nice but unbearable. It's been a walk through hell to tell you frankly. Bugs are numerous, documentation is lacking, in many cases I end up browsing through source code and there's way too much magic used there. My forum posts remain mostly unanswered and that's also often the case with other people's questions here I stumbled on while googling. Almost no existing modules are supported in 3.0, too.
Perhaps my impression would be similar with 2.4 since I've never used SilverStripe for anything more complex than a website with some custom pages and now am building a simple, but not DEAD simple CRM system, I don't really know.
I had good experience with SilverStripe in the past and am grateful for all the hard work put by its team into it. But releasing 3.0 in the state it was fails all the trust I had in this project. I cannot rely on a software that releases beta-quality code as a major revision and I'll have to put a lot of unneccessary work to iron out all the bugs for my customer. It really kills all the time gains I get from - really nice in concept - scaffolding mechanisms, etc.
To summarize, I do not recommend using 3.0 for anything more complex right now. 3.0.1 does fix some bugs, but the CMS is still unstable and slow. Having browsed through a large part of SS code I also got impression that it's become too complex for quite a simple tasks it should be doing and frankly lost hope that it'll get really fixed any time soon. Perhaps with time it'll get to its former glory (I wish SS devs all the best with that), but we do have to use something in the meantime.
Sorry if that sounds like an ungrateful rant, but I hope it might save someone from going the 3.0 path that I went and makes people responsible for release schedules think more before they call 3.1 or whatever next major version will be "ready".
31 July 2012 at 6:39pm
My forum posts remain mostly unanswered and that's also often the case with other people's questions here I stumbled on while googling. Almost no existing modules are supported in 3.0, too.
The problem with the forum is that the core developers do not use it. This has been the same in 2.4, but since that was mature code, the documentation was in a much better state and most questions could be answered by non core devs. The best way to contact the core team is the IRC channel.
The disadvantage of IRC is that it does not allow sorting questions into threads. The channel is logged, but it is very hard to find the solution to a problem in those logs, since they are just plain chatlogs.
I have the impression that the core team is understaffed, so the best way to make sure that bugs are fixed is to investigate your favorite ones and maybe even write a fix.
Since their is still a lot of work to be done on the core, the modules have been neglected a bit. Furthermore, many of them are not supported by the core team, so upgrading to 3.0 is the responsibility of the maintainer. The modules supported by the core team are currently being upgraded - see today's blog post by Hamish (http://www.silverstripe.org/silverstripe-framework-and-cms-3.0.1-stable-release/). Modules not working with a new version will occur with every version that introduces breaking changes. The core will be updated first, the modules will follow later. 3.0 is only a month old and new minor versions are scheduled monthly, so improvements should be visible soon.
Nevertheless, I would currently recommend to stay with 2.4 for customer projects.
|Go to Top|