Dave, thanks for the reply. CommonSpot and Site Executive seem to be pretty common recommendations. I know both were covered in recent CFDJ articles, as well as a few other systems (NQContent and Ektron). Time to dig out my old issues! :-)
>Most CMSs don't actually store the images themselves in the database, but >rather just where the images are stored on the filesystem. True. Ours stores images on the file system, but documents are stored in the database. Both have led to many problems. See below. >> DB should act as a STORAGE mechanism and NOT DYNAMIC, in most >> cases (This is not how the existing system works). > >I'm not sure what you mean by this. I would like the actual content to be static on the web server. It would be managed from the system. Versions would be stored in the database and published to the server via FTP or CFFILE, so that the content would exist statically. Right now, almost all of the content on the website is served up dynamically from the database. This leads to a complete collapse of the website when the database goes down. This seems pointless, since most of the content doesn't change much. If the content was published statically, but stored in the database for management purposes, that would eliminate this problem. Only dynamic pages would be affected by the database going down. >> Oracle 8i/9i - DB maintenance available OUTSIDE of system >> (Isn't this an issue with NQCONTENT?) > >I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this, either. I took a look at NQCONTENT while at Devcon, and read its review in CFDJ. The problem with it, if I remember correctly, is you have to surrender database maintenance to the CMS. In other words, the DBAs and I couldn't use Oracle software, SQLPlus, TOAD or SQL Navigator to maintain the database. It's set up almost like you would use PHPMyAdmin to manage a MySQL database online (just an example - I know there are MySQL clients - I like MySQLCC, and have had good experiences with it so far). If anyone's used NQCONTENT out there, and can prove/disprove this, I would love to hear from you in this thread! >CommonSpot meets all these requirements, and I think Site Executive does >too. CommonSpot uses a pretty simple browser-based interface for managing >content, but you need to run Windows/IE to get the most out of this, I >think. Windows and IE 6 are the standards here. There are many versions of Windows in use here, but everyone runs IE 6, so this shouldn't be a problem. >> RELATIVELY EASY TO GET UP AND RUNNING >> Relatively easy to customize, if necessary > >CommonSpot is pretty easy to get up and running. However, I think that these >two goals are opposed, to a certain degree. In general, it seems to me that >the easier it is to get started, the harder it is to customize. Systems like >Spectra (and FarCry also, I assume) are very customizable, since they're >really more like toolsets than applications. I realize that. I would like something that would allow both, if possible. Of course, I am a customization wizard :-), so I am not too worried about that. As long as I have access to the source code, that shouldn't be an issue. My main issue is that I want to be able to get the system up and running as quickly as possible, so that we don't have to manage two CMSs and two versions of the content for very long. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=4 FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq This list and all House of Fusion resources hosted by CFHosting.com. The place for dependable ColdFusion Hosting. http://www.cfhosting.com Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
