CMS Research

[Danwhy]

Adds markdown file with the results of my research into various CMS options. Includes requirement checklist and a CMS recommendation.

ref: #5

@nelsonic It would be great to get your opinion on my recommendation, in case there's anything I may have missed that you're aware might pose a problem.

[nelsonic]

@Danwhy thank you for summarising your initial research for these four options. 👍

Apologies that it has taken me longer than usual to review/comment on this PR. ⏳
My reason for not simply merging this immediately is that I wanted to give a detailed response as to why I feel that there was a "false premise" which lead to a "false conclusion" ... (which is 100% not your fault) ... we don't need a "fancy" CMS to CRUD the CS product/venue/review data, we need the simplicity and a specific schema which does not need a "drag-and-drop" interface to be managed because it will not change often. And when the Schema does change the "hard part" will be making it look good and easy to understand/interact with on the Frontend i.e. UX not the API/Backend.

Respectfully I disagree with the recommendation to use Contentful and I did not want to simply "reject" the PR without a decent explanation of why.
Contentful appears to be a good platform for a specific type of larger API/CMS project and for the people who need the "advanced" features it could be justifiable however on the basis that we would need to use their "Large Space" which is a $879 / month or $10,548 / year commitment which "blows the budget" for CS. 😞

I made my views on the CMS Spike/Research clear in: #5 (comment)
I feel that doing "CMS research" before having a crystal clear understanding of the types of content we need to schematise, capture, store and render is like selecting the engine for a vehicle before we know what the purpose of the vehicle is ... we could pick a V8 when what we need is an electric motor.

For anyone else interested in understanding these CMS and CMS-as-a-Service providers, we've have expanded on each of these in:

• Wagtail: Wagtail? dwyl/adoro#104
• Contentful: Contentful? dwyl/adoro#105
• Apostrophe: Apostrophe? dwyl/adoro#106
• Prismic: Prismic? dwyl/adoro#107

I am happy to merge a modified version of this PR, provided the "conlusion" is not a recommendation of a Closed Source service which "locks in" CS to paying $10k/year in "Rent". Please modify your conclusion to say: we are investigating content types further and are leaning towards defining an append-only-log schema using the Phoenix Frameword which is an Open Source "successor" to Ruby-on-Rails which will have a significantly lower lifetime "total cost of ownership" than a CMS-as-a-service provider and none of the "headache" of maintaining a Node.js-based CMS or Security issues of a PHP-based-system.

Thanks. ❤️

[iteles]

I take full responsibility for this one. @Danwhy had indeed also mentioned to me that this was the recommendation if we had to use an off-the-shelf product, rather than the recommendation full stop!

Thanks again for the research @Danwhy, I found it a very enlightening set up for the conclusion to come 👍🏻

[iteles]

Closing this as no longer relevant. Ultimately we needed more flexibility than these could afford us 👍