As long as you're only storing text, whether it be html or dtml or what, then
LocalFS might be a good solution for you. You still get through-the-web content
management, and lots of neat Zope-isms like acquisition. What you can't do is
attach persistent properties to the files you store locally, not even as much as
a 'title' property. If you need that ability then LocalFS is not the way to go.
I don't see how Michael's wget solution will help you there either, though.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2000 7:59 AM
Subject: Re: [Zope] Bypass ZODB and use File System

> Noah wrote:
> >
> > What we really want to do is to provide a second view to
> > /var/www/htdocs for Apache. I understand that Apache won't
> > serve up our dynamic content, but that's not important.
> > Zope is just viewed as a better solution for managing our
> > static documents. The problem we have in my organization is
> > that there is a lot of resistance to my prototype Zope
> > document management system due to the fact that everything is
> > stored in ZODB. We think this risky -- possibly a data prison.
> The way my organization does it, is to manage the content
> within Zope, and to regularly run 'wget' on the server to
> replicate it all to static files, which are then served by
> Apache on another server. Doing that, plus regular backups
> of the Data.fs file (you're already making regular backups
> of your Apache based system, right?), and you should be
> guarded against any but the most catastrophicly unlikely
> disaster scenarios (you do have a disaster recovery plan,
> right?).
> wget is really a very easy way to get documents back out of
> Zope, and if your system is designed to do this as a matter
> of course (perhaps by using 'cron'), it should silence those
> particular criticisms.
> > Also people don't want to change from their current habits of
> > editing files via NFS or Samba mounted directories. My original
> > plan was to allow them some sort of syncronization process,
> > but now I think that would be crazy.
> Hmm. I guess it depends on what percentage of your users
> want to keep doing this. You can certainly combine LocalFS
> with the approach that I outlined above. I would make it a
> special case. Keep the CMS server separate from the Apache
> server, and only allow the mounted directories on the CMS
> server. I've found that people appreciate being able to
> manage their content from anywhere through a browser, and
> they tend to gravitate toward that as a matter of course,
> once it's there, if they're not forced to do it.
> In short, give people options, and see which ones they
> actually use.
> HTH,
> Michael Bernstein.
> _______________________________________________
> Zope maillist  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> **   No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
> (Related lists -
> )

Zope maillist  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
**   No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - )

Reply via email to