I had a chance to look at AssetNow. It looks very interesting... the concerns I have are no Oracle... and I am not too keen on the splash screen that comes up after you log in. A lot of the users of this system are not computer savvy, so it shouldn't overwhelm them. Otherwise, I like the price a lot and the features look great, too. I had never heard of this system until today, but it is one of the ones that's in the game!
><plug> >www.assetnow.com ></plug> > >Can generate content to static html pages - however not all features are >support on static pages. > >Johan > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Brian Meloche" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 4:51 AM >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 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
