Trying to build a database driven website

[sheldonlg]

Re: Trying to build a database driven website

doznot wrote:

sheldonlg wrote:

>I fully agree with Jerry on all points here. Using a database for
>data driven web sites is the way to go. It is much simpler than
>handling files.

>

No database experience? I started with Oracle in 1995.
That won't win any contests here, but it represents a lot more
experience than none. I don't want to start a name calling fight.
But I do think there is an important "small site" niche for a files
based system.
>

When I said I agreed with Jerry on all points, I was only referring to
that of using a database being easier. I did not mean to imply (though,
it did) anything about your experience. I apologize for the
mis-statement on my part.

[doznot]

Re: Trying to build a database driven website

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

>
That's because your first premise is 100% incorrect.
>

I've been out of town and I don't read news on my traveling laptop.
So I'm jumping back in a bit late.
And this thread is getting a bit tired. However, you (Jerry) have
successfully dodged my main point from the beginning. All I said, at the
start, was that there was a "valid small site niche" for a files-based
CMS (or page generation tool). I never said a files-based system was
"better than" anything. I said it was a valid alternative to a
database, that makes particular sense in the small site context.

The one point that does make (a lot of) sense to me is the inherent
difficulty in performing search and replace operations on html
fragments, that need to be updated. In a database context these
search and replace operations (over semi-random fragments, not
labeled columns) must be framed inside query, fetch, replace and
update sequences in a database. Over files it's so easy you type
the code out at the command line. You cannot do that with query fetch
replace and update sequences, especially when the fragments you are
working over might appear in differently named columns, perhaps even
in different tables.

Html fragments (that exist in all database driven packages I've ever
seen) will contain small sub-strings that periodically need to be
changed. Perhaps it's a link that has been moved, where the link in
question is known to exist on multiple, indeterminate pages.
Or perhaps said html fragments are known to contain references Joe Blow
is now an MD instead of an intern. That particular chore comes up
again and again and again in my work (search for a text pattern
buried in html fragments and change it to something else).

Search and replace over html fragments stored in a database
is more cumbersome than working over files. That makes room for a
niche alternative. A reference to this sort of thing (a files-based
system) was mentioned in this group about a half a year ago and it
got attacked then by the usual aggressive and pretend-to-know-everything
attackers, but it also got praised by at least one of the group's most
prestigious participants.

I don't think a files-based system would be appropriate for a large
commercial site. But for read-mostly informational sites of 100 pages
or less it works well indeed for me, and I find it to be so much
quicker and easier to deal with than the larger database-driven sites,
that I also worked with for years.

[Jerry Stuckle]

Re: Trying to build a database driven website

doznot wrote:

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

>>
>That's because your first premise is 100% incorrect.
>>

>
I've been out of town and I don't read news on my traveling laptop.
So I'm jumping back in a bit late.
And this thread is getting a bit tired. However, you (Jerry) have
successfully dodged my main point from the beginning. All I said, at the
start, was that there was a "valid small site niche" for a files-based
CMS (or page generation tool). I never said a files-based system was
"better than" anything. I said it was a valid alternative to a
database, that makes particular sense in the small site context.
>

No, I didn't dodge your main point. I don't think a database-based
system is harder or more complex than a file-based system. Rather, I
think it's much easier. Less to worry about.

The one point that does make (a lot of) sense to me is the inherent
difficulty in performing search and replace operations on html
fragments, that need to be updated. In a database context these
search and replace operations (over semi-random fragments, not
labeled columns) must be framed inside query, fetch, replace and
update sequences in a database. Over files it's so easy you type
the code out at the command line. You cannot do that with query fetch
replace and update sequences, especially when the fragments you are
working over might appear in differently named columns, perhaps even
in different tables.
>

It is quite easy to do search/replace in a database. Queries are not
hard, and you don't need to fetch anything.

And databases don't require command-line access to the system - not
available on many shared hosts.

Also, if you design your database correctly, they won't appear in
different tables or columns.

Html fragments (that exist in all database driven packages I've ever
seen) will contain small sub-strings that periodically need to be
changed. Perhaps it's a link that has been moved, where the link in
question is known to exist on multiple, indeterminate pages.
Or perhaps said html fragments are known to contain references Joe Blow
is now an MD instead of an intern. That particular chore comes up
again and again and again in my work (search for a text pattern
buried in html fragments and change it to something else).
>

Quite easy to do in a database, if you know how. In fact, even easier,
if you plan your database with changing data in mind.

In the case of a link, for instance - just have a table with links in it
and refer to it from other tables. That way you only need to change one
link.

However, even if you have the link embedded in multiple html fragments,
it's quite easy to change.

Search and replace over html fragments stored in a database
is more cumbersome than working over files. That makes room for a
niche alternative. A reference to this sort of thing (a files-based
system) was mentioned in this group about a half a year ago and it
got attacked then by the usual aggressive and pretend-to-know-everything
attackers, but it also got praised by at least one of the group's most
prestigious participants.
>

Not if you know how do to it, it isn't.

I don't think a files-based system would be appropriate for a large
commercial site. But for read-mostly informational sites of 100 pages
or less it works well indeed for me, and I find it to be so much
quicker and easier to deal with than the larger database-driven sites,
that I also worked with for years.
>

I'm glad it works well for you. But I doubt it will work for most sites
- or on many shared hosting companies (which don't have command line
access).

A database-based solution works on any host which supports databases
(and if they don't, they aren't worth using, IMHO).

But you ignored my main point. A vast majority of the database-driven
sites do NOT store such HTML in databases. The main ones which do are
using CMS's such as Drupal, Joomla, Mambo, etc. That's a completely
different approach to database-driven websites.

I've only had one site (a non-profit) which used a CMS, and that's
because they needed a blog. And actually, the blog was only a small
part of the site. The rest of the site was also database-driven - but
had no HTML (other than that entered by members for their own pages).
However, it used databases heavily.

All the rest of my sites use databases heavily, also. But they aren't a
CMS, so they have very little HTML in the database.

--
=============== ===
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attgl obal.net
=============== ===

[doznot]

Re: Trying to build a database driven website

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

All the rest of my sites use databases heavily, also. But they aren't a
CMS, so they have very little HTML in the database.
>

Finally--after all this time--an answer with specific argument, rather
than unsupported insult. Good work Jerry. You're coming around.

OK, it appears we have a semantic hair to split.
Database-driven sites don'tstore HTML fragments, only CMSs do.
In a database-driven site, by your definition, every string and every
tag from every page is stored in a table.column so it can be directly
updated by sql.

*If* such a system existed, I accept your argument, for that system
and all others like it.

I'm signing off this thread permanently, regardless response.

[Jerry Stuckle]

Re: Trying to build a database driven website

doznot wrote:

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>

>All the rest of my sites use databases heavily, also. But they aren't
>a CMS, so they have very little HTML in the database.
>>

>
Finally--after all this time--an answer with specific argument, rather
than unsupported insult. Good work Jerry. You're coming around.
>

I guess you can't read. I had specific arguments above.

OK, it appears we have a semantic hair to split.
Database-driven sites don'tstore HTML fragments, only CMSs do.
In a database-driven site, by your definition, every string and every
tag from every page is stored in a table.column so it can be directly
updated by sql.
>

I never said that.

*If* such a system existed, I accept your argument, for that system
and all others like it.
>
I'm signing off this thread permanently, regardless response.
>

That's good - because you have no idea what you're talking about.

You claim you've been using Oracle since 1995 - but you show absolutely
zero understanding of databases and how they are used.

More likely you used an application which accessed an Oracle database
and never have done any database programming.

I suggest you read up on how databases are used in the real world and
come back when you can discuss this intelligently.

--
=============== ===
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attgl obal.net
=============== ===

[Jerry Stuckle]

Re: Trying to build a database driven website

doznot wrote:

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>

>All the rest of my sites use databases heavily, also. But they aren't
>a CMS, so they have very little HTML in the database.
>>

>
Finally--after all this time--an answer with specific argument, rather
than unsupported insult. Good work Jerry. You're coming around.
>

I guess you can't read. I had specific arguments above.

OK, it appears we have a semantic hair to split.
Database-driven sites don'tstore HTML fragments, only CMSs do.
In a database-driven site, by your definition, every string and every
tag from every page is stored in a table.column so it can be directly
updated by sql.
>

I never said that.

*If* such a system existed, I accept your argument, for that system
and all others like it.
>
I'm signing off this thread permanently, regardless response.
>

That's good - because you have no idea what you're talking about.

You claim you've been using Oracle since 1995 - but you show absolutely
zero understanding of databases and how they are used.

More likely you used an application which accessed an Oracle database
and never have done any database programming.

I suggest you read up on how databases are used in the real world and
come back when you can discuss this intelligently.

--
=============== ===
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attgl obal.net
=============== ===

[Richard]

Re: Trying to build a database driven website

So ...
who has the biggest dick?

R.

[Jerry Stuckle]

Re: Trying to build a database driven website

Richard wrote:

So ...
who has the biggest dick?
>
R.
>
>
>

Who ask you, troll?

--
=============== ===
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attgl obal.net
=============== ===

[Richard]

Re: Trying to build a database driven website

You lose.

:)

R.

[doznot]

Re: Trying to build a database driven website


I am signing off this thread this time.
But as final thought (from me anyway) it would be a real pleasure,
here in this group, if it somehow became possible to venture an
opinion--about almost anything--without the almost certain expectation
of insult-filled response.

Opinions can and should be debated honestly and respectfully.
That's the essence of critical thinking: you try to understand both
sides of any argument. You respect both sides. You compare arguments and
do your best to support your idea with logical argument, rather than
aggressive, condescending insult.

This could be a great group. There many skilled and knowledgeable
hackers who participate here. But, from what I see, although questions
do get answered, assertion and opinion almost *always* gets attacked
with derisive and largely unsupported insult. It would be a real
pleasure here if that changed.

[Jerry Stuckle]

Re: Trying to build a database driven website

doznot wrote:

>
I am signing off this thread this time.
But as final thought (from me anyway) it would be a real pleasure,
here in this group, if it somehow became possible to venture an
opinion--about almost anything--without the almost certain expectation
of insult-filled response.
>
Opinions can and should be debated honestly and respectfully.
That's the essence of critical thinking: you try to understand both
sides of any argument. You respect both sides. You compare arguments and
do your best to support your idea with logical argument, rather than
aggressive, condescending insult.
>
This could be a great group. There many skilled and knowledgeable
hackers who participate here. But, from what I see, although questions
do get answered, assertion and opinion almost *always* gets attacked
with derisive and largely unsupported insult. It would be a real
pleasure here if that changed.
>

Read back. I did exactly that. But then you ignored some things and
took other things out of context. You even misquoted me. The thread
proves every bit of it.

If you want to carry on an intelligent discussion, then do so, if you can.

--
=============== ===
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attgl obal.net
=============== ===