- What Laravel versions does graham-campbell/cms-core support?
- It supports only Laravel 4.1. The release note for the current line is explicit about that constraint, and the package now lives under the GrahamDeprecated namespace at v0.2.0-alpha. There is no Laravel 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, or 11 support, and no maintained upgrade path is published.
- Can I install graham-campbell/cms-core in a new Laravel application?
- No, composer require is not a viable path for a modern Laravel app. It is only feasible in an existing Laravel 4.1 application that already depends on it. Building an adapter layer for Laravel 5+ would cost more and carry more risk than reimplementing the few primitives the package offers.
- What does graham-campbell/cms-core actually include?
- It provides a shared content-model trait covering slugs, publishing state, and metadata, plus navigation and menu management, persisted redirect handling, and a caching layer in front of content delivery. It also includes standard Laravel service-provider and facade wiring. It is the foundational substrate for Bootstrap CMS-style applications rather than a standalone CMS.
- How do I install and register CMS Core in a Laravel 4.1 app?
- With Composer, you would pin the exact alpha release inside an existing Laravel 4.1 project rather than floating the constraint. You then register the package service provider and add any facade aliases in your Laravel configuration. Because v0.2.0-alpha changed authentication, events, and models alongside the PSR-4 switch, verify the documented registration steps against the source for that exact tag.
- Is graham-campbell/cms-core still maintained, and is there a successor or fork?
- It appears stale rather than actively maintained: it sits under the GrahamDeprecated namespace at v0.2.0-alpha with zero dependents. There is no field validation, no community triage, and no published maintained successor in the available context. The realistic options are to read the source, vendor a pinned copy, or fork it and take ownership internally.
- What are the risks of using cms-core in production?
- The dominant risk is the end-of-life Laravel 4.1 framework underneath, which has no security patch path regardless of this package's own code quality. Layered on top are alpha versioning with no backward-compatibility promise, test coverage deleted in v0.2.0-alpha precisely where authentication, events, and models changed, and a caching layer that turns staleness into silent wrong behavior. Every risk here is unhedgeable upstream, so it must be absorbed internally or avoided entirely.
- How does redirect handling in CMS Core work, and does it support status codes or loop detection?
- The package provides persisted redirect handling, but the public documentation does not describe its exact semantics. Whether it supports loop detection, status-code selection, collision and ordering rules, or 404 fallthrough has to be inferred from source; it may be a flat path-to-path table. Confirm these behaviors before relying on it for URL churn or SEO redirects.
- How does the CMS Core content caching layer work and how do I invalidate it?
- The package places a caching layer in front of content delivery, but the cache driver, TTL, and invalidation hooks for content, menu, and redirect changes are not documented in the available material. You need to check the source to see whether invalidation is wired to model events. Treat this carefully, because stale cache in this layer produces silent wrong behavior rather than a loud failure.
- Does cms-core ship database migrations or schema definitions, and can I extend them?
- The provided context does not confirm whether migrations or schema definitions are shipped, whether they are safe to extend, or what happens on re-publish. Those are open questions that must be answered by reading the package source for the exact v0.2.0-alpha tag. Treat undocumented schema expectations as a large explicit unknown in any estimate.
- Are there tests in cms-core, and what replaced the tests removed in v0.2.0-alpha?
- The v0.2.0-alpha release removed the package's broken tests, and nothing in the available context indicates what replaced them. That means current coverage on authentication, events, and models is unknown and needs direct inspection of the repository. With zero dependents, there is also no community evidence that these code paths have run at scale.