Brian, We have an enterprise version, but that is not as cut and dry pricing as the hosted. The Enterprise version handles DB updates as well. Some of our larger clients running this system are:
http://www.akingump.com http://www.venable.com http://www.munsch.com - j james curran technical director nylon technology [EMAIL PROTECTED] 212-691-1134 -----Original Message----- From: Brian Meloche [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 3:57 AM To: CF-Talk Subject: Content Management Systems - a short list... This looks interesting - but is there any non-shared hosting option? That's all I saw on the site, and that puts it out of the game. This is not an option for us. >Hello, > ><cfplug> >http://www.editingmadeeasy.com ></cfplug> > >This product is geared for most small businesses. It provides the >flexibility of site updates, enforces business rules, and is completely >software independent. It does not require *anything* other than FTP on >the webserver serving the site to be edited. > >The current version does not support versioning, but that is in the >works. > >- j > >james curran >technical director >nylon technology >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >212-691-1134 > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Brian Meloche [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 12:52 PM >To: CF-Talk >Subject: Content Management Systems - a short list... > > >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 Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
