[development] flexinode towards 4.7: update, and it needs additional maintainer(s)

Vladimir Zlatanov vlado at dikini.net
Fri Apr 21 11:09:54 UTC 2006

> > CCK is not tested in
> > critical environments,
> Umm. the difference is that flexinode is _known_ to not work
> in critical environments.

An attempt to cull a potential flame. Flexinode doesn't scale well. Due
to it's exprimental design it has loads of performance issues, so I
wouldn't recomend it for critical environments [1]. It is a workable
solution for sites with modest traffic. It does offer functionality not
yet available in cck, mainly, I suppose, due to time constraints, or
natural unwillingness to commit to a particular implementation: what
approach to use for file fields? (to mention one from the top of my

By design, CCK scales better, provides better fundamentals, is a better
long-term choice. 

Practicaly CCK is flexinode 2.0, so like all decent 2.0 releases it is
still in beta.

Having said that, I agree that 1.0 & 2.0 are going to coexist for some
time. I suppose the fittest will survive. Both have valid applications.
One is young(ish), the other one is aged. Please don't argue on the
merrits of either - they are obvious, as the disadvantages of both.

[1] critical environment depends on your definition of one, but for me 
the requerements for the software are circling around:
* security
* scalability - both how many websites can co-exist and how flexible it
* stability under load ( intentionally ripped off from above)
* performance - related to the above

Flexinode has issues with most of the above. I'm using it on minor card
sized websites, or applications - because iit is flexible. Nothing

More information about the development mailing list