CMS question

[Jon]

All,

I'm working in a fairly robust content management system for our company's
websites, and have a question regarding the file and directory structure of
the site.

Currently, I'm populating all content from each page using data in a MySQL
DB, and php to call the DB and push out the info. Fairly standard right?
Well, my question lies in the best approach to take regarding the file
structure. Basically, as of now, I can make the entire website essentially
ONE page, as I'm simply filling in content based on the link the visitor
clicks on. I build the links on the fly using PHP and contentIDs from the
DB, so even though each page is "different" , it's all the same file.

My question is really the disadvantages of this. Though it's very easy
because I can make code changes on one page, I'm looking for some major
algorithmic disadvantage here that I cannot seem to come up with as of now.
The only problem I've found is regarding what happens if the visitor hits
the page without a query string being passed. In the past, I've ran a check
on this as each page had a separate file (instead of just one index.php
page, it would be something like /members/index.php). Outside of this, I'm
not sure where the problem with his method lies. Can anyone shed some light
on a major disadvantage I may be missing here?

[Adam Plocher]

Re: CMS question

I personally use a single index.php file for everything, but I have
mod_rewrite setup on apache to convert urls like:

mysite.com/index.php?nav=n ews&id=12

to

mysite.com/news/12

this solution makes it easy to maintain (since it's all in one central
file) and also will make it "search engine optimized". from what I
understand, for the most ideal SEO, you shouldn't put everything into a
single file, but mod_rewrite will act like it's using a complex
directory structure, even though it's really not. If you're interested,
I can send you the lines I used for mod_rewrite.

[kevincw01]

Re: CMS question

The no-query string problem can be solved with sessions. If they dont
have a session then show the main index page.

As for the single page deal, I really cant think of a disadvantage to
multiple pages.

[Marc]

Re: CMS question

Adam Plocher wrote:[color=blue]
> this solution makes it easy to maintain (since it's all in one central
> file) and also will make it "search engine optimized". from what I
> understand, for the most ideal SEO, you shouldn't put everything into a
> single file, but mod_rewrite will act like it's using a complex
> directory structure, even though it's really not. If you're interested,
> I can send you the lines I used for mod_rewrite.[/color]

I'd be interested in seeing this.

Marc

[G.E.M.P]

Re: CMS question

Jon wrote:
I'm looking for some major[color=blue]
> algorithmic disadvantage here that I cannot seem to come up with as of now.[/color]

push all output through a print function that takes a file handle
as a parameter. That way you can run in dynamic mode (STDOUT) or
alternately and write the whole site out as static html.
With static html you don't have to worry about algorithmic performance.
site_bot at phpclasses.org works that way.
[color=blue]
> The only problem I've found is regarding what happens if the visitor hits
> the page without a query string being passed.[/color]

if($query_strin g == NULL || $query_string == "")
{
$query_string = "some default pageID or whatever you need";
}

Dynamic screen printing from a richly populated database schema is
the easy part. The hard part (in my experience) is
populating the database with good content.
The mechanics of populating the database is hard and the
problem of finding good content is even harder.

[G.E.M.P]

Re: CMS question


I had another CMS thought (CMS design and behavior is one of
my favorite subjects).

Slashdot ran a new item a day or two ago, about a UK
study suggesting websurfers judget websites in a few
nanoseconds. In other words, most surfers decide almost
instantly whether they want to continue exploring a
site or not.

That fits my own experience: that's what I do.
And one of the key nano-second decision makers for
me happens when my brower updates to yet another CMS
generated site, that not only looks just like a ten
thousand other such sites, it, like all of its cousins,
looks bad.

To be successful, CMS technology needs to provide more
administrative flexibility in layout design, and they need
to avoid those ugly three column, one or two horizontal
header rectangle layouts that all get filled with
jive random text.

It takes me about a nano second to recognize those sites,
and the first thing I do is click back to another tab, to
get away as fast as I can.

[Jon]

Re: CMS question

I dug up and read this study, very interesting. Though I don't feel our
sites are aesthetically bad, it's nice to know how quickly a site fails to
hold a user.

So what's the fix regarding CMS then? On one hand, our users want the
flexibility of a CMS (instead of the pain of Contribute or other methods),
but on the other by nature our sites become somewhat static because of the
CMS - in particular with the 1-page design.

Is it feesable to include different areas on a page that can be activated,
or deactivated on the fly via the CMS? Say a small table on the right hand
side of one content area, that is only there if the contentID meets the
condition? What are you doing to ensure your sites don't fall into the
aesthetic vs flexibility problem?

Thank you for all the help to all btw - I'm hoping this thread continues a
bit for more ideas, but there's my thanks now :p

Adam - I'd also like to see that mod_rewrite code - I've never worked with
this at all, and am kind of interested. I like the fact that we can clean
our URLs up while keeping the current functionality we have.
"G.E.M.P" <slowtorture@sp ammers.com> wrote in message
news:NJ-dnV6Affp3AVLeRV n-uQ@bresnan.com. ..[color=blue]
>
> I had another CMS thought (CMS design and behavior is one of
> my favorite subjects).
>
> Slashdot ran a new item a day or two ago, about a UK
> study suggesting websurfers judget websites in a few
> nanoseconds. In other words, most surfers decide almost
> instantly whether they want to continue exploring a
> site or not.
>
> That fits my own experience: that's what I do.
> And one of the key nano-second decision makers for
> me happens when my brower updates to yet another CMS
> generated site, that not only looks just like a ten
> thousand other such sites, it, like all of its cousins,
> looks bad.
>
> To be successful, CMS technology needs to provide more
> administrative flexibility in layout design, and they need
> to avoid those ugly three column, one or two horizontal
> header rectangle layouts that all get filled with
> jive random text.
>
> It takes me about a nano second to recognize those sites,
> and the first thing I do is click back to another tab, to
> get away as fast as I can.[/color]