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 Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
