OSCommerce: Suggestions for programming direction

[Guest]

Hi all,

 

I'll start by saying that OSCommerce is still (narrowly) my e-commerce application of choice, because it's open source and offers a more complete set of features than competing packages. So don't get me wrong...this isn't a bash post. I'm hoping that I can point out some of the major stumbling blocks the OSCommerce system presents to users, which I think need to be addressed.

 

OSCommerce has competition. It's a content management system, and there are other open source content management systems that are much more fully-featured, with incredibly wide user bases (Drupal, Mambo, Plone, etc). The problem is that many of these have begun to develop e-commerce functionality. For a recent project, we actually chose between Drupal and OSCommerce, and it was a close comparison...while before, we stuck with OSCommerce without really thinking about it.

 

Why? Because Drupal's code is elegant. Drupal has a extremely modular system for adding or subtracting functionality. Drupal is also much better documented, and has an incredibly supportive network of online Drupal users (I'll also mention CivicSpace in this regard). We hit a stumbling block recently and core members of the CivicSpace team actually took a very significant chunk of their time to help us out with it, unpaid, just to generate documentation and experience that would help others in similar hosting environments.

 

Compare the two:

 

With OSCommerce, I look around for updates. I find them. It takes some digging to even figure out what version I have. Then I'm told that I can't tell if I have the patches without actually examining the code directly (forum post). I attempt to apply the patches...I download the update files, and find no instructions with them other than the generic OSCommerce installation instructions for new installs. I upload the files, overwriting the existing server files. And then I'm stuck. Even after re-writing the database connection strings in the config file, I'm stuck.

 

With Drupal, let's say I want to add a feature. I download a file. I unzip it, like I unzipped my OSCommerce files. I upload it into a /modules directory. I visit my site and then click on Administer -> Modules, and then I see the new module available. I click to enable it, and the system automatically adds any required database tables *without* modifying the core Drupal code in any way.

 

Sure, I'm comparing apples to oranges here, but my general point is that there are worlds of difference in the user-friendliness of the two.

 

Drupal's e-commerce system is new, and not very full-featured. But if it had the features to meet my project's needs, I would have chosen it over OSCommerce without hesitation.

 

Other systems have not had this problem. Moodle, for example, is another well-designed CMS for e-learning, and integrated very well with Drupal, instead of competing. Why hasn't this happened with OSCommerce? I hear constantly that OSCommerce code is clunky, clumsy, and inelegant. The theming system is so rigid and inflexible that I tend to agree...my experience with theming OSCommerce pales by comparison to the power and control a developer has over a Drupal theme. That simply doesn't exist in OSCommerce. Why? These are the stumbling blocks that are preventing Drupal developers from embracing OSCommerce.

 

Sorry if these questions are "harder" than a simple "I want this feature" post. But I think they're extremely relevant. OSCommerce needs to become more modular, more customizable, and more user-friendly if it's going to attract new users and (importantly) new developers. Otherwise, this will continue to stunt its growth, and Drupal and other CMS packages will begin to offer competing modules that draw OSCommerce users away from the project. It's a big job, since the system clearly wasn't designed with this in mind...and it might involve significant rewrites to core code to develop the hooks for a theming system comparable to Drupal's. But it's worth it, in the long run, because it's the only thing that can ensure the vitality of the project. Otherwise, sadly, OSCommerce will become irrelevant as soon as somebody writes a more fully-featured set of modules for Drupal. There are already custom implementations of Drupal that have fully-functioning online stores (like goodstorm.com). It's only a matter of time.

 

Just my $0.02. I'd appreciate your thoughts.

 

Dave.

[shaytaan]

Hi all,

 

I'll start by saying that OSCommerce is still (narrowly) my e-commerce application of choice, because it's open source and offers a more complete set of features than competing packages. So don't get me wrong...this isn't a bash post. I'm hoping that I can point out some of the major stumbling blocks the OSCommerce system presents to users, which I think need to be addressed.

 

OSCommerce has competition. It's a content management system, and there are other open source content management systems that are much more fully-featured, with incredibly wide user bases (Drupal, Mambo, Plone, etc). The problem is that many of these have begun to develop e-commerce functionality. For a recent project, we actually chose between Drupal and OSCommerce, and it was a close comparison...while before, we stuck with OSCommerce without really thinking about it.

 

Why? Because Drupal's code is elegant. Drupal has a extremely modular system for adding or subtracting functionality. Drupal is also much better documented, and has an incredibly supportive network of online Drupal users (I'll also mention CivicSpace in this regard). We hit a stumbling block recently and core members of the CivicSpace team actually took a very significant chunk of their time to help us out with it, unpaid, just to generate documentation and experience that would help others in similar hosting environments.

 

Compare the two:

 

With OSCommerce, I look around for updates. I find them. It takes some digging to even figure out what version I have. Then I'm told that I can't tell if I have the patches without actually examining the code directly (forum post). I attempt to apply the patches...I download the update files, and find no instructions with them other than the generic OSCommerce installation instructions for new installs. I upload the files, overwriting the existing server files. And then I'm stuck. Even after re-writing the database connection strings in the config file, I'm stuck.

 

With Drupal, let's say I want to add a feature. I download a file. I unzip it, like I unzipped my OSCommerce files. I upload it into a /modules directory. I visit my site and then click on Administer -> Modules, and then I see the new module available. I click to enable it, and the system automatically adds any required database tables *without* modifying the core Drupal code in any way.

 

Sure, I'm comparing apples to oranges here, but my general point is that there are worlds of difference in the user-friendliness of the two.

 

Drupal's e-commerce system is new, and not very full-featured. But if it had the features to meet my project's needs, I would have chosen it over OSCommerce without hesitation.

 

Other systems have not had this problem. Moodle, for example, is another well-designed CMS for e-learning, and integrated very well with Drupal, instead of competing. Why hasn't this happened with OSCommerce? I hear constantly that OSCommerce code is clunky, clumsy, and inelegant. The theming system is so rigid and inflexible that I tend to agree...my experience with theming OSCommerce pales by comparison to the power and control a developer has over a Drupal theme. That simply doesn't exist in OSCommerce. Why? These are the stumbling blocks that are preventing Drupal developers from embracing OSCommerce.

 

Sorry if these questions are "harder" than a simple "I want this feature" post. But I think they're extremely relevant. OSCommerce needs to become more modular, more customizable, and more user-friendly if it's going to attract new users and (importantly) new developers. Otherwise, this will continue to stunt its growth, and Drupal and other CMS packages will begin to offer competing modules that draw OSCommerce users away from the project. It's a big job, since the system clearly wasn't designed with this in mind...and it might involve significant rewrites to core code to develop the hooks for a theming system comparable to Drupal's. But it's worth it, in the long run, because it's the only thing that can ensure the vitality of the project. Otherwise, sadly, OSCommerce will become irrelevant as soon as somebody writes a more fully-featured set of modules for Drupal. There are already custom implementations of Drupal that have fully-functioning online stores (like goodstorm.com). It's only a matter of time.

 

Just my $0.02. I'd appreciate your thoughts.

 

Dave.

 

Just wait alittle more for version 3 :-"

[♥bruyndoncx]

hmm comparison ?

http://drupal.org/node/769

 

I was thinking it might have something to do with the Antwerp Diamonds or Antwerp Sixdesigns vs Eau de Cologne :lol: B)

 

but I'm just guessing :-" :-" :-"

[♥Vger]

OSCommerce has competition. It's a content management system

 

Only in the widest sense is it a CMS. It's true comparators are other ecommerce applications (shopping carts). Mambo Shop uses PHP Cart, which is pretty much a dead duck and has been for a long time. Apart from that there's little in the way of CMS systems with functional shopping carts attached.

 

However, there is no doubt that osCommerce has fallen way behind at least one other shopping cart, which does undergo continuous development and new releases. I won't mention it here because it'll only get deleted.

 

But MS3, when a fully working Production version is released, is still only playing catch-up and still lags behind.

 

The great advantage of the current osCommerce version (MS2) is its extendability, and my main concern is that, while MS3 is a more elegant solution (code wise), it won't have that easy extendability.

 

Vger

[cannuck1964]

The great advantage of the current osCommerce version (MS2) is its extendability, and my main concern is that, while MS3 is a more elegant solution (code wise), it won't have that easy extendability.

I figure 90% of the contributions will not be that difficult to change to the new system. Yes it is true some will be more complex, but given the logic is alrready developed, it is a matter of adding in the DB layer and the template layer. With the rest being pretty much similar in nature.

 

I do not expect that the logic change is going to restrict the extendability of the system as a whole, and with the contribution packages already developed you will see a much faster completion time for them to move into the newer logic.

 

chjeers,

Peter M

[Guest]

I disagree!

 

OSCommerce is an e-commerce CMS, perhaps, but it is still a CMS. It is still a thing that people use to separate technology from content, thereby enabling website administration.

 

To compare OSCommerce only to other e-commerce tools is shortsighted, if I may say so. Users are looking for powerful tools, period. If a tool does everything that Drupal does but doesn't do e-commerce, and I want an e-commerce site, I can't use Drupal. But if Drupal begins to add e-commerce functionality, it's a compelling solution...and it suddenly has *tons* of features that OSCommerce can't match.

 

The web is becoming more interactive, with increasingly blurry boundaries. E-commerce is already involving aspects of community tagging, social networking, citizen journalism/blogging/publishing, and community authorship...and we're leveraging all of those conversations into something that is both good for business and good for the internet as marketplace. To loose site of this is to stifle OSC development.

 

Dave.

[boxtel]

I figure 90% of the contributions will not be that difficult to change to the new system. Yes it is true some will be more complex, but given the logic is alrready developed, it is a matter of adding in the DB layer and the template layer. With the rest being pretty much similar in nature.

 

I do not expect that the logic change is going to restrict the extendability of the system as a whole, and with the contribution packages already developed you will see a much faster completion time for them to move into the newer logic.

 

chjeers,

Peter M

 

without system documentation which is again totally absent, you can forget about the conversion of any MS2 contribution to MS3 for a long time and rightfully so.

[cannuck1964]

without system documentation which is again totally absent, you can forget about the conversion of any MS2 contribution to MS3 for a long time and rightfully so.

You may need documentation, I for one can read it like a book, so documentation is just a reference tool to be used rarely. I also know trhey have been working on the documentation of the system, check the kwnoldge base first, that is all related to the MS3 serries and not for MS2..

 

If you need documentation to do code work, then maybe you need to concentraite on one project and get to know it well rather then trying to learn many but always rely on documentation...

 

Peter M

[boxtel]

You may need documentation, I for one can read it like a book, so documentation is just a reference tool to be used rarely. I also know trhey have been working on the documentation of the system, check the kwnoldge base first, that is all related to the MS3 serries and not for MS2..

 

If you need documentation to do code work, then maybe you need to concentraite on one project and get to know it well rather then trying to learn many but always rely on documentation...

 

Peter M

yes, well, I can read you like a book.

The knowledge base is focused on how to use the MS3 stuff and has no system documentation whatsoever but then maybe you are not that accustomed with the meaning of the phrase system documentation.

 

Still, looking forward to seeing your first MS3 contributions but then again, we are still waiting for your first MS2 contribution aren't we. Go figure.

[cannuck1964]

The knowledge base is focused on how to use the MS3 stuff and has no system documentation whatsoever but then maybe you are not that accustomed with the meaning of the phrase system documentation.

Both system usage and coding standards are there for your reading enjoyment. Feel free tobrowse around there and actually learn something.

 

Still, looking forward to seeing your first MS3 contributions but then again, we are still waiting for your first MS2 contribution aren't we. Go figure.

My work does not entail adding contributions here. I have my reasons, but if you really want to know what I have made up, you are free to IM me and I will telll you, just do not expect to get any of them..

 

Peter M

[boxtel]

Both system usage and coding standards are there for your reading enjoyment. Feel free tobrowse around there and actually learn something.

 

My work does not entail adding contributions here. I have my reasons, but if you really want to know what I have made up, you are free to IM me and I will telll you, just do not expect to get any of them..

 

Peter M

 

As I suspected, no clue as to what system documentation consists of, I am beginning to suspect you work for a hosting company, god forbid you run one.

 

I know your reasons, we all do.

[cannuck1964]

As I suspected, no clue as to what system documentation consists of, I am beginning to suspect you work for a hosting company, god forbid you run one.

Here you go again, stating things without any foundation or facts. I really wish you would learn first, then state facts, as it is, you say things without any basis or factual knowledge. I think you need to get out the books and read.

 

I know your reasons, we all do.

I bet you do know all reasons, your wit and knowlegde of things still keeps me in awe of your intellectual greatness. Please feel free to post more so I too can learn from yourself.

 

Peter M.

[shaytaan]

This is getting interesting... keep it up guys :lol: