Databases
StackOverflow2013
Postsdbo
POGit-based content management?
 

Note that there are some explanatory texts on larger screens.

plurals
  1. POGit-based content management?
    primarykey
    data
    text
    <p>I'm looking for a Ruby CMS (or plugin) that can <strong>serve and edit content located in a Git repository</strong>. I'm sick of having my content in a db. Users, settings, comments, fine. But no more content.</p> <p>Each live edit to a page will need to be automatically, immediately committed to prevent the need for server-side merging. Also, whenever new changes are pushed, they will need to be immediately updated on the filesystem.</p> <p>Refinery CMS documentation seems to do something similar, although perhaps with a remote repository.</p> <p>I've read about GitModel and git-blog, but I'm still looking for something that matches my needs a bit closer. [EDIT: GitModel is too hard to edit by hand when used with most CMSes, and git-blog uses static file generation.]</p> <p><strong>EDIT: My bias against databases for content only applies to sites that need a high degree of customization, and can't use any CMS as-is. Sites whose code evolves as much as its content. This is when the having content in a DB is an utter nightmare. When you need to fork the content and code at the same time, them merge them both into production later. DBs don't branch and merge.</strong></p> <p>I have such a site. </p> <p>The performance argument in favor of DB-only content is null and void. I wrote a CMS 5 years ago that synchronizes the database from the filesystem, where the filesystem is always the master copy. It scaled easily to 100,000 pages, maintaining 10ms response times and 2s reindex times. Fully searchable indexes of all the content, metadata, tags, dates, etc. And heck, I wrote it in the slowest, most painful framework on the planet, ASP.NET. It actually <em>almost</em> made ASP.NET bearable, and it has served various companies extremely well, since they had the same kind of site as mentioned above. </p> <p><strong>Small sites can simply use an in-memory cache, skipping the db content altogether</strong></p> <p>A valid argument for db-only content is scalability of editing. Editors must all use the same server, although changes can be replicated outward. But in the case of quick-changing, highly customized sites who change code as often as content, distributed/community editing of said code and content is unlikely. Community/distributed editing can use a different system.</p> <p><strong>So far, the closest I have come is using Cloud9 to edit a git repository of content (Nesta CMS), then push the changes via the command line. It's slow, but at least it's web-based in case my dev machine isn't handy which I discover I misspelled my name in an article.</strong> Still looking for better options.</p>
    singulars
    1. PO
      singulars
      1. PTAnswer
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. PTQuestion
    1. USLilith River
    1. USLilith River
    plurals
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. PL
      singulars
      1. LTLinked
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. PO
      singulars
      1. PTAnswer
    2. PO
      singulars
      1. PTAnswer
    3. PO
      singulars
      1. PTAnswer
    1. VO
      singulars
      1. POGit-based content management?
      1. This table or related slice is empty.
      1. VTUpMod
    2. VO
      singulars
      1. POGit-based content management?
      1. This table or related slice is empty.
      1. VTUpMod
    3. VO
      singulars
      1. POGit-based content management?
      1. This table or related slice is empty.
      1. VTUpMod
    1. COWould you like to talk a little about why you don't want content in the database?
      singulars
      1. POGit-based content management?
      1. USTom Anderson
    2. CO"I've read about GitModel and git-blog, but I'm still looking for something that matches my needs a bit closer." What is it about those things that you find unsatisfactory?
      singulars
      1. POGit-based content management?
      1. USMatrixFrog
    3. COGitModel doesn't offer lots of flexibility on how the files are written, and makes editing them directly kind of difficult. git-blog uses static generation, while most of my site will contain advanced dynamic functionality.
      singulars
      1. POGit-based content management?
      1. USLilith River
 

Querying!

 
Guidance
A row detail

Detail views are divided into sections. All the information in the data section comes from columns in the selected row. The other sections display data from other, related rows.

Related data can be related in a to-one or a to-many fashion. Captions of data related in a to-many fashion link to a list view showing a filtered view of the table.

Try moving around until you find a non-empty to-many entry and click on the label to get to one. You can move back to the root by clicking on the database name in the header.

SQuiL has stopped working due to an internal error.

If you are curious you may find further information in the browser console, which is accessible through the devtools (F12).

Reload