Talk:List of content management frameworks

I've a doubt: adding a CMFramework I'm working on to this list, even if it's OpenSource, it's like advertising? I could do it? Folletto 17:34, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd say don't do it. Wait for someone else. alerante &#x2706; 20:32, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok, perfect. Thanks for the reply. :) Folletto 21:04, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Software framework taxonomy
I'm trying to organize the various types of software frameworks, and I would appreciate input from contributors to this article as well. See Talk:Software framework Ian Bailey 05:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Are all these really frameworks?
Many of the applications listed aren't frameworks; they're Content Management Systems (CMSs). Specific known examples include Drupal and Symphony. Yes, these may be configurable, or extensible with plugins, but they come as a CMS out-of-the-box and don't require a developer to customise.

Compare and contrast with something like Typo3, Vignette or Office SharePoint Server (as successor to MS Content Management Server), which all require significant technical skill to get off the ground even to a basic level.

I'd exclude the applications I don't count as CMFs myself, but WP is a place for consensus and there's currently no clearly-defined definition on this page (given CMF redirects here). So I'd like to hear some thoughts before proceeding. 59.167.212.218 (talk) 01:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC) (aka Calrion)


 * I do agree with you, the only text on this page says:


 * A content management framework is an application programming interface for creating a customized content management system.


 * Which I read as being a system to create your own CMS's with. Which none of the listed ones is as far as I know. Killerog (talk) 23:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I like the idea that a CMS is designed so that nonprogrammers can create and manage websites. This seems consistent with how the term "Content Management System" is used, including on Wikipedia. But regarding content management frameworks, in our paper about our new content management, um, tool, Deme, we say the following:


 * "Recently, the term “content management framework” has been used, somewhat controversially, to denote “an application programming interface for creating a customized content management system” [footnote to Wikipedia]. We use the term “framework” to indicate that the system is designed to facilitate custom code development" (Todd R. Davies and Mike D. Mintz, "Design Features for the Social Web: the Architecture of Deme", IWWOST 2009).


 * Under this definition, a system could be both a CMS and a CMF, and Drupal, Plone, etc. would qualify as both. Saying that a tool cannot be a CMF if it works out of the box without programmer effort implies that a CMF is short of being a CMS. That's a negative way to define "CMF". It seems more useful to define it as we have, because otherwise we lose the distinction between a CMS which is not a CMF and one which is. If "CMF" is defined positively, tools like those mentioned above could qualify as CMFs but not CMSs, so we still have a way to distinguish them from Drupal, Plone, etc. I offer to this to include in the main article if you think it's useful.Trbdavies (talk) 19:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

CMF is a concept where it offers to access the tool in two ways which are CMS(Like Expression Engine) and Framework(Like CakePHP). CMS offer all visual tools like Page manager, Member Manager, Blog, Forum and Gallery which are access able form interface. Framework offer to access all programming tool like MVC pattern, Factory Pattern, EAV model, Database abstraction layer (PDO in PHP), Plugin, add-ons. If we simply edit source code of a CMS to get desired output that does not mean, it is a CMF.

A CMS is CMF when it has a building Framework with all recognizes modules not developed by own concept on the other hand a Framework will be a CMF if it has a complete CMS built-in with it. If start to call all large CMS to CMF it will be a negative way to define it.

So, a CMF (Like [appRain]) must have both full featured CMS and Framework built-in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.30.38.33 (talk) 06:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC) Italic text

Merge with Web Application Framework?
How is a "Content Management Framework" different than a Web Application Framework? CMF seems more like a marketing term, at least at this point. I see little use of CMF in cite-able sources like news articles (almost none) or journals (far less than WAF).

From a practical standpoint the distinction between "content" and "web application" seems small - wouldn't most of the systems listed do just as well for supporting customized web apps as they do for managing existing content?

Beyond that there are no proper cites here, and the reference for the quote (the non-citable drupal page) doesn't have that quote at it any more. Something needs to change..... ★NealMcB★ (talk) 17:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree. "I'm looking for something to help me develop a website, so what do I want, a CMS, a CMF or a Web Application Framework?" It seems they are at least to a large extend overlapping. Therefore I also suggest a merger. If needed on the list page an extra column can specify if some system / framework would fall in the category of CMS, CMF or Web Application Framework. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.78.165.201 (talk) 08:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree. Please merge as suggested. --Jesus Presley (talk) 06:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree. Please merge as suggested. GlennKook (talk) 00:15, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Merge discussion
As per the above, I don't see criteria that would distinguish software listed here from being either a Content Management System and/or a Web Application Framework. So, I am proposing to merge this article into both List of content management systems and Comparison of web application frameworks. Greenman (talk) 21:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * +1 to merge - David Gerard (talk) 08:55, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * +1 to merge - Koen Lemmen (talk) 13:32, 8 February 2017 (GMT+1)
 * +1 to merge - GlennKook (talk) 00:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Starting the merge. Greenman (talk) 17:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Completed merge (if with a rather awkward final section of 'other' platforms, to deal with difficult cases that had been left. Klbrain (talk) 17:39, 22 December 2017 (UTC)