CMSMS 2.0 Module Alternatives

[lewishowles]

So 2.0 is here and it seems great, but many of the critical modules haven't been updated (and unfortunately, it seems like many of them haven't been updated in a long time and probably never will be). Here's my list of frequently used modules and any (not many) alternatives I've found. Does anyone have any others to add to the list, or know alternatives to any?

PS: I'm very thankful Calguy is a dev team member and has been working so hard to update his own modules!

ListIt2 / ListIt2XDefs - Alternative: EasyList http://dev.cmsmadesimple.org/projects/easylist
Purpose: Create lists of near enough anything, with any field definitions

Archiver - Alternative: ?
Purpose: Create a history of changes to content, in case an editor ran into any trouble
Is it really needed: Hmm, not that many people do actually use it, but it's very handy when it's needed.

TemplateExternalizer - Alternative: ?
Purpose: Make editing templates so, so much easier
Is it really needed: For quick iteration it simply blows copying and pasting into text boxes out of the water.

GBFilePicker - Alternative: ? Maybe {content_image}?
Purpose: Allow the user to upload images in situ, especially great for things like ListIt
Is it really needed: Hmm, maybe not with the drag and drop file uploader (if the client has a browser that supports it)

Advanced Content - Alternative: ?
Purpose: Allow different types of content block - for example check boxes
Is it really needed: It's very nice to be able to add a checkbox that says, for example 'do you want to include the sidebar on this page?', and use the value of that to show or hide content.

FormBuilder - Alternative: ?
Works, but has issues in 2.0. Deleting some of the stock forms causes errors, but most importantly it still uses the CMSMailer module which likely won't be around for long.

[Guido]

I would very much like Advanced content to be made ready for CMSMS 2.0. The possibilities it gives me to present user-friendly backend pages that represent the actual end-content are great. I would personally be willing to pledge $ 20,- for a module developer that will make it ready. So if me and 19 others would, we'd have $ 400,- to offer someone who's capable of doing that.

[calguy1000]

One thing either nobody understands, or they like to conveniently forget that nobody can just take control of a module and start working on it without the author's permission.

Even though the source code is free... the author still maintains copyright on that code. It would be the same as an author writing 1/2 of a book and then somebody taking that work and adding on to it.

So, if some willing module writer wanted to work on the module, and the original author does not respond to his requests, or declines... then there is no other choice but to fork the module (while retaining all copyright notices and credits).

And forking a module is a bit harder process.. and then there's the question of compatibility and data migration.

Though there is technically very little for modules like Advanced content to become compatible with CMSMS 2.0. to Fork it, and worry about data migration and compatibility, and ongoing support is more complex.

edited for improved readability.

[reinhardmohr]

Hi,
I know it sounds a little bit off-topic here. But I think this is the point where I just want to say "thank you" to the guys who develop CMSms and the modules and who now have to upgrade the modules to CMSms 2.0.
They do it all for free. And I have read a lot of complaints about 2.0 and the modules. Maybe we can support the developers of the core and the upgrading of the modules just by saying „Great work, guys! Go on like that! Thank you for the hard work you do for CMSms and the modules!“

Thanks

Reinhard

[Guido]

+1 for both of you, both valuable points.

So, if some willing module writer wanted to work on the module, and the original author does not respond to his requests, or declines... then there is no other choice but to fork the module (while retaining all copyright notices and credits).

In which case I would change my pledge to: someone who wants to fork the module.

And forking a module is a bit harder process.. and then there's the question of compatibility and data migration.

Understandable, but existing users of the original module could migrate their templates and setting to the fork. Agreed, a bit more effort but still better than wanting to upgrade to CMSMS 2.0 and not being able to keep functionality.

I've been upgrading my PHP and JS skills over the last year, so if someone could point me to where the bottlenecks are (or might be) I could take a crack at it. Freely available to the community of course.

[Rolf]

@reinhardmohr Thank you!!