That wouldnt be a problem if you only did business in one country.
But a LOT of web sites do business around the globe, when no matter
what the time is, it's business hours in some part of the world. A
VERY LARGE number of web sites of all sizes have no time down for
maintenance, except on rare
There are NO commercial sites in Australia that I know of that
habitually shut down for anything more than a minute or two EVER.
Habitually? Where are you getting this stuff from mate?
Who said anything about habitually? Are you even reading the same posts
stuff I'm posting?
I'll bet you
...@whitestonemedia.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 10:58 PM
To: cf-talk cf-talk@houseoffusion.com
Subject: RE: Feedback on this approach to many sites, one codebase
(MSOC)
I can see both sides on this one very clearly.
To this point, all I've ever done is develop custom
applications and websites. I
That's true...definitely something to take into consideration.
-Original Message-
From: Jason Fisher [mailto:ja...@wanax.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 7:34 AM
To: cf-talk
Subject: RE: Feedback on this approach to many sites, one codebase (MSOC)
The big caveat I will give
r...@whitestonemedia.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 10:58 PM
To: cf-talk cf-talk@houseoffusion.com
Subject: RE: Feedback on this approach to many sites, one codebase
(MSOC)
I can see both sides on this one very clearly.
To this point, all I've ever done is develop custom
applications
.
From: Rick Faircloth r...@whitestonemedia.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 10:58 PM
To: cf-talk cf-talk@houseoffusion.com
Subject: RE: Feedback on this approach to many sites, one codebase
(MSOC)
I can see both sides on this one very clearly.
To this point, all I've ever done is develop
.
From: Rick Faircloth r...@whitestonemedia.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 10:58 PM
To: cf-talk cf-talk@houseoffusion.com
Subject: RE: Feedback on this approach to many sites, one codebase
(MSOC)
I can see both sides on this one very clearly
: Michael Grant mgr...@modus.bz
To: cf-talk cf-talk@houseoffusion.com
Sent: Wed, 23 February, 2011 14:45:15
Subject: Re: Feedback on this approach to many sites, one codebase (MSOC)
Really. Even banking sites come down for hours of maintenance. I suspect
whatever your sites are, your 24/7
Taking the system down for an entire hour, without warning, would not be
acceptable.
Who said anything about without warning? How can you possibly have gotten
that from what I said? We're talking about making code changes to a large
multi-user application, not some casual css change. Of
I wrote a custom desktop application in VB to update all my databases at one
time. Using SQL scripting this can be easily managed. When I am ready to
roll out a change that requires a DB update, I can do it in real time, with
minimal service interruption, and without taking the sites offline.
That may be. I have a lot of friends who haven't been busted driving after a
few glasses of wine. By your reasoning since they haven't been busted it
must not be a bad idea.
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 3:46 PM, Brian Cain bcc9...@gmail.com wrote:
I wrote a custom desktop application in VB to
Granted most of my changes are minor like updating a stored procedure or
view or adding a column. I also run them on a test database first.
Updates that may have a major impact on a table with millions of records,
would never be done while the sites are up, but regular minor changes and
fixes
Yes, I used this method for a long time by putting code right into the
CF codebase. I used a different datasource for the DB updates, one that
allowed MODIFY / ALTER / CREATE, and then had the code test against
existing DB structures to decide which changes needed to be made along
with that
Even though my own CMS can handle multiple sites running off of a
single installation, I don't run it that way. The points brought up
about clients wanting individual customizations and portability fit my
situation. I understand if you are offering software-as-a-service
things change, but for
I'm late to the thread, but like Eric and Sean have indicated, having all
domains under the same application name is the way to go. We've got a
big multi-tenant application here (several hundred thousand lines of
code) designed that way and it works great. Reinitializing an application is
quick
I'm curious how this is handled in some cases. A single application
would have a smaller memory footprint on the server, but I've always
placed site specific variables in the application scope, keeping
sessions much smaller and reducing overall memory overhead. Yes,
reinitializing
In the application scope... but you have a structure, such as:
application.settings.sites[CHR][config][adminEmail]
As I said, it works great for us.
We don't have a tear off site structure, and a client can't ask for the
code, since it would be impossible to replicate due to the business we
: Feedback on this approach to many sites, one codebase (MSOC)
Even though my own CMS can handle multiple sites running off of a
single installation, I don't run it that way. The points brought up
about clients wanting individual customizations and portability fit my
situation. I understand if you
I tend to use a siteId, based upon the query return. I can then reuse
that ID for things like the folder name of a SiteSpecific media/assets
folder. If the site url changes, the siteId does not, eliminating future
heartaches.
Steve 'Cutter' Blades
Adobe Certified Expert
Advanced Macromedia
: Mark A. Krugermkru...@cfwebtools.com
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 12:59 PM
To: cf-talkcf-talk@houseoffusion.com
Subject: RE: Feedback on this approach to many sites, one codebase
(MSOC)
Ooh... good point Russ. I usually strip off the www and replace the
periods with underscores as well
Though not always the case, my experience with MSOC sites is that you're
offering Software As A Service, where you retain all ownership of the
code and that is clearly stated within the contract with the client.
Steve 'Cutter' Blades
Adobe Certified Expert
Advanced Macromedia ColdFusion MX 7
PM
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: Feedback on this approach to many sites, one codebase (MSOC)
I have built two applications under this method, and you are using many of
the same ideas. Mine have been up and running for years with no major
issues. In regard to the domain name issue mentioned
'Cutter' Blades [mailto:cold.fus...@cutterscrossing.com]
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2011 8:13 AM
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: Feedback on this approach to many sites, one codebase (MSOC)
I tend to use a siteId, based upon the query return. I can then reuse
that ID for things like the folder name
-talk
Subject: Re: Feedback on this approach to many sites, one codebase (MSOC)
Though not always the case, my experience with MSOC sites is that you're
offering Software As A Service, where you retain all ownership of the
code and that is clearly stated within the contract with the client.
Steve
]
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 12:56 PM
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: Feedback on this approach to many sites, one codebase
(MSOC)
I have built two applications under this method, and you are using many of
the same ideas. Mine have been up and running for years with no major
issues
-Original Message-
From: Steve 'Cutter' Blades [mailto:cold.fus...@cutterscrossing.com]
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2011 8:13 AM
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: Feedback on this approach to many sites, one codebase (MSOC)
I tend to use a siteId, based upon the query return. I can then reuse
that ID
Typically I'll use Virtual Directories (or Alias in Apache) for this, to
ref the SiteSpecific folder, and use ExpandPath(/SiteSpecific) to
build out absolute paths for internal app use. No db interaction
required, pathing automatically changes if the server config changes.
(Not sure how this
What I've done with clients (well, client, I've only had one that left me)
who want to move is copy the site using httrack or similar, put it on a CD,
and be done with it. I've also given them a copy of their specific web site
content in .csv format.
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 8:19 AM, Steve
the best practices for applying the methods I'm
using on the site manager to public web sites, themselves.
-Original Message-
From: Sean Corfield [mailto:seancorfi...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 7:58 PM
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: Feedback on this approach to many sites, one codebase
: Thursday, February 17, 2011 5:58 PM
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: Feedback on this approach to many sites, one codebase (MSOC)
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Robert Harrison
rob...@austin-williams.com wrote:
1. Your relationship with the client changes and the client wants to
take the site
...@ecartech.com]
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 9:15 AM
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: Feedback on this approach to many sites, one codebase
(MSOC)
One thing you may want to take into consideration, if you plan on having
many sites run through this codebase, is NOT giving each site a unique
application name
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: Feedback on this approach to many sites, one codebase (MSOC)
One thing you may want to take into consideration, if you plan on having
many sites run through this codebase, is NOT giving each site a unique
application name. (as in cfset this.name = #cgi.server_name#). I
scope.
Every site has its own database, paths, etc.
Rick
-Original Message-
From: DURETTE, STEVEN J (ATTASIAIT) [mailto:sd1...@att.com]
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 10:11 AM
To: cf-talk
Subject: RE: Feedback on this approach to many sites, one codebase (MSOC)
Probably a stupid
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 6:14 AM, Eric Cobb cft...@ecartech.com wrote:
One thing you may want to take into consideration, if you plan on having
many sites run through this codebase, is NOT giving each site a unique
application name.
I always take the approach of a single application name - for
Subject: Re: Feedback on this approach to many sites, one codebase (MSOC)
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 6:14 AM, Eric Cobb cft...@ecartech.com wrote:
One thing you may want to take into consideration, if you plan on having
many sites run through this codebase, is NOT giving each site a unique
application
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 11:36 AM, Rick Faircloth
r...@whitestonemedia.com wrote:
When a user visits www.xyz.com, onApplicationStart() runs a
query that retrieves, among other variables, the absolute path
to those images. Realize, the application that I'm referencing
is a global site manager
Rick,
Having managed many many such sites I can tell you that your choices and
approach are pretty standard. I think you are on track (though careful
testing is of course warranted).
-mark
Mark A. Kruger, MCSE, CFG
(402) 408-3733 ext 105
Skype: markakruger
www.cfwebtools.com
For a primae example of how this is best done you can look at many of the
major frameworks which support this type of setup.
MACH-II for example allows you to have a single core install of the
framework which is used by all your apps via a simple mapping.
If you plan to use the domain name to
Yeah, that works just fine, Rick. Have used variations of that approach
for quite a few years, both with and without a 'framework' in place, and in
any case that code sits quite well in the Application.cfc as you've
outlined.
From: Rick Faircloth
I have built two applications under this method, and you are using many of
the same ideas. Mine have been up and running for years with no major
issues. In regard to the domain name issue mentioned by Russ, a simple
workaround for this is to use a bit of string parsing. You can parse out
the
Michaels [mailto:r...@michaels.me.uk]
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 11:45 AM
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: Feedback on this approach to many sites, one codebase (MSOC)
For a primae example of how this is best done you can look at many of the
major frameworks which support this type of setup.
MACH-II
to.
From: Mark A. Kruger mkru...@cfwebtools.com
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 12:59 PM
To: cf-talk cf-talk@houseoffusion.com
Subject: RE: Feedback on this approach to many sites, one codebase
(MSOC)
Ooh... good point Russ. I usually strip off the www and replace
Thanks, Mark! Good to know! :o)
-Original Message-
From: Mark A. Kruger [mailto:mkru...@cfwebtools.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 12:39 PM
To: cf-talk
Subject: RE: Feedback on this approach to many sites, one codebase (MSOC)
Rick,
Having managed many many such sites I can
to many sites, one codebase (MSOC)
For a primae example of how this is best done you can look at many of the
major frameworks which support this type of setup.
MACH-II for example allows you to have a single core install of the
framework which is used by all your apps via a simple mapping.
If you
Thanks, Jason! :o)
-Original Message-
From: Jason Fisher [mailto:ja...@wanax.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 12:55 PM
To: cf-talk
Subject: re: Feedback on this approach to many sites, one codebase (MSOC)
Yeah, that works just fine, Rick. Have used variations of that approach
FYI it is actually a best practice these days to only have 1 domain
accessing your site and to redirect all others to that domain (including
www) whether doing it in your code or using url redirection.
You saw one of the reasons which is managing your code base, other reasons
include web stats
From a technical standpoint you are on the right track... we do a similar
thing in that we use a standard framework and deploy that to the sites we
build, thus we use copies of the same codebase. It seems the approach you are
taking is to really use JUST ONE codebase to run all the sites.
://clientSite.whitestonemedia.com
http://www.clientSite.com
Any thoughts on this? Seems to be working fine, so far.
Rick
-Original Message-
From: Brian Cain [mailto:bcc9...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 12:56 PM
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: Feedback on this approach to many sites
[mailto:mkru...@cfwebtools.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 12:55 PM
To: cf-talk
Subject: RE: Feedback on this approach to many sites, one codebase (MSOC)
Ooh... good point Russ. I usually strip off the www and replace the
periods with underscores as well. That way I have only 1 app name
I would agree with Robert.I was contracted to work on a site once
that was doing just what you want - they were an application provider
for their clients web sites. All the clients provided was a look and
feel template, and they did the rest.
At first it was easy. In fact they had one
...@michaels.me.uk
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 1:21 PM
To: cf-talk cf-talk@houseoffusion.com
Subject: Re: Feedback on this approach to many sites, one codebase
(MSOC)
FYI it is actually a best practice these days to only have 1 domain
accessing your site and to redirect all others to that domain
I prefer to have the domain names in a database mapped to a primary domain name
or an application name. This allows me to have a UI to enter new domain names
as they are needed (we add them pretty frequently).
That also allows you to write code to your web server to add bindings for each
...@bryantwebconsulting.com
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 2:45 PM
To: cf-talk cf-talk@houseoffusion.com
Subject: Re: Feedback on this approach to many sites, one codebase
(MSOC)
I prefer to have the domain names in a database mapped to a primary domain
name or an application name. This allows me
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Robert Harrison
rob...@austin-williams.com wrote:
1. Your relationship with the client changes and the client wants to take
the site and move. Now you are faced with either holding the client's site
hostage or giving away your multi-site base code
on this approach to many sites, one codebase (MSOC)
FYI it is actually a best practice these days to only have 1 domain
accessing your site and to redirect all others to that domain (including
www) whether doing it in your code or using url redirection.
You saw one of the reasons which is managing your code base
[mailto:rob...@austin-williams.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 1:21 PM
To: cf-talk
Subject: RE: Feedback on this approach to many sites, one codebase (MSOC)
From a technical standpoint you are on the right track... we do a similar
thing in that we use a standard framework and deploy
.
Maybe this will work.
-Original Message-
From: Mike Kear [mailto:afpwebwo...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 1:36 PM
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: Feedback on this approach to many sites, one codebase (MSOC)
I would agree with Robert.I was contracted to work on a site once
[mailto:ja...@wanax.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 1:45 PM
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: Feedback on this approach to many sites, one codebase (MSOC)
If you're using shared server space, though, no need to spend money on a
bunch of separate sites if they all need to use the same codebase
of it.
From: Steve Bryant st...@bryantwebconsulting.com
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 2:45 PM
To: cf-talk cf-talk@houseoffusion.com
Subject: Re: Feedback on this approach to many sites, one codebase
(MSOC)
I prefer to have the domain names in a database mapped to a primary domain
name
Your approach at Broadchoice sounds exactly like what I'm
anticipating implementing...
-Original Message-
From: Sean Corfield [mailto:seancorfi...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 5:58 PM
To: cf-talk
Subject: Re: Feedback on this approach to many sites, one codebase (MSOC
60 matches
Mail list logo
