Headless CMS

The evolution of CMS

The monolithic CMS of the 2000s(web 2.0 era) brought Less specialized users into the game. The simple graphical environment of these CMSs allowed users to publish their own visual textual content without knowing a single line of code.

This period saw the emergence of open source CMS operating systems such as Drupal, WordPress and Joomla. Most of these include both the back-end and front-end technologies of a website. Gradually, with the development of CSS, the problem of design in CMS became more important and the appearance of websites moved away from their classic and old-fashioned state

In 2007-2010 (web 3.0 era) Mobile phones and tablets came to the scene, And in 2014, Americans became more mobile-connected to the Internet than desktops. WordPress had to be responsive. Mobile phones filled websites. Web pages matched themselves to different cell phone sizes

The open source nature of CMSs gave them the flexibility to keep up with new technologies. It was the point that we had CMSs that were constantly updated and were very user-friendly for content production and design, and users did not need to know a single line of code to publish content to the world.

It was a good evolution But due to the rapid growth of technology and the strong need of businesses to enter the online market and of course the high cost of hiring professional developers to start online businesses. CMS, especially WordPress, produced a lot of plugins and themes that largely met the needs of users and businesses. WordPress was no longer a CMS just for creating diary blogs. From now on, the online store and restaurant reservation and blog of technology giants and tons of other services were provided by WordPress.

WordPress continued its evolution and surpassed all its competitors. It took over a significant percentage of the web. And its large population of contributors were waiting to once again adapt the WordPress core to the needs of the world.

Who cut the head of CMS?

Today, there are more than forty million IOT home devices. That includes everything from the smart speakers on our kitchen counter tops, to the AI-enabled devices on our wrists, to the screen-touting kiosks at the local mall.

Effective communication with different types of devices is crucial for a business that identifies its target community. 

Older integrated CMSs do not have the ability to communicate effectively with all of these devices. WordPress head (front-end layer) with all the features it gives us for fast design has important technical limitations.This is where we remove the default Front-end WordPress layer and CMS is used only as part of the project back end. This makes it easy to create, read, update and delete (CRUD) content via APIs.

Well, here you can go to the beginning of the article once again and find out the connection of this article to the legend of Hercules.

Specialized developers come and connect our CMS to mobile applications, online stores, etc. with the support of the APIs we have.

Useful headless

Depending on your needs, headless CMSs have advantages and disadvantages, and you should choose this method for your projects according to the conditions and features.

Advantages of using headless CMS:

• Platform independence
• Replaceable technology stack
• Omnichannel support
• API first approach
• Code Maintainability

Headless celebrities:

• Butter CMS: provides an independent blogging platform that you can integrate into any framework.
• Contentstack: Features include content previews, collaboration, asset management, workflow management, and versioning.
• Contentful: Contentful’s RESTful API gives developers full programmatic control of content, digital assets, and translations. The platform also takes advantage of caching techniques as well as external CDN integrations to enable the delivery of API payloads in the sub-100ms range.

headfull quote:

The character of different technologies is like expert human beings, each of whom has the ability to solve problems and, of course, are weak in some areas.

It is a bad idea to consider different technologies as Marvel characters, Absolutely good or evil. We must be able to choose the right tools to target the project according to the characteristics and conditions of a project

Perhaps the phrase (beyond good and evil) from Nietzsche has a slight use here.