> True. Ours stores images on the file system, but documents are stored > in the database. Both have led to many problems. See below. > Traditionally, there have been many problems both in storing files in databases and storing metadata in file systems. This has lead many to feel the correct solution is to store files in file systems and metadata in databases along with a path to the file on the file system. This solution creates additional management problems in and of itself because of the decoupling. If the file moves how does the database know? If the database goes down how to you get any information about the files?
Clearly what was needed was a new type of database specifically designed to store content and files together. Alchemy EX includes such a database. Our database doesn't replace an RDBMS; it just does what an RDBMS wasn't designed to do. Keep storing your tabular data in an RDBMS by all means. > 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. > The CMS world is divided as to whether content managed sites should be dynamic of published. There are pros and cons to both approaches. We went the dynamic route for many reasons, which I'll spare the list. However, we have included a caching engine that essentially produces a static version of the site in-memory. > 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! > Since we include a database as part of our CMS that database is fully maintained by our product. However, any interactions you have with an RDBMS is your own business and we leave that to you. -Matt ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| 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 Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
