Forum OpenACS Q&A: File storage vs. static content.

Collapse
1: File storage vs. static content.
Posted by Anton Bajri on 06/27/01 07:18 PM
If i use the file-storage module to collaboratively develop content for a site by his own staff, and avoid having to FTP the pages, i find several shortcommings.
The resulting page, for example https://openacs.org/new-file-storage/download/cr-pg-usage.html?version_ id=187 will not have ad_header/ad_footer, nor collect comments. Also, if I want to link to this page, i have to explicitly mention the version_id.
The effect i want is the same that would result if the latest version of the files in file-storage where visibles to static-content module and served trough it. Something like registering a special directory in a similar fashion to how /users is, so the structure under file-storage/download is mimicked as being static.
Does this make ANY sense?

Saludos,
Jorge
Collapse
2: Response to File storage vs. static content. (response to 1)
Posted by Ryan Campbell on 06/29/01 06:42 AM
Well, if you want to manage static content on your website, file-storage probably won't help you without some extra work -- as you've evidently noticed. The file-storage module is really for collaborating around documents, not the development of websites. Sorry.

I do know that aD at some point had a file manager integrated with CVS for version 3.3 (but not released). It allowed our graphic designers (at iluvcamp) to update templates without having to go through a programmer. I haven't ever seen this in the wild, so it probably doesn't help you much. However, some benevolent aDer might see this and speak up.

Other Options:

  • Use Karl's old standalone CMS (not sure if this works on postgres -- I know the template part does).
  • Use Fulfly's port of Ybos' CMS.
  • Wait for OpenACS4 - full blown CMS as well as "File Manager" which sounds like the descendent of the versioning upload app I mentioned.

You wouldn't want any advice from me on which one to pick, because I haven't used any of them.

Collapse
3: Response to File storage vs. static content. (response to 1)
Posted by Luke Pond on 06/29/01 06:48 PM
Dave Hill and I have been using the File Manager code from ArsDigita on various projects. I packaged the code we use with OpenACS 3.2.x and you can download it here.

Our bug fixes have also been folded into the file-manager package for ACS4 classic, which is available from aD's download section.

It will be extremely easy to get this package working with OpenACS4, as it doesn't ever touch the database.

Collapse
4: Response to File storage vs. static content. (response to 1)
Posted by Michael Feldstein on 06/29/01 09:41 PM
Huh. Luke, that looks interesting. What would you use it for?
Collapse
5: Response to File storage vs. static content. (response to 1)
Posted by Talli Somekh on 06/29/01 10:39 PM
Michael, we used this as a nice little CMS for 3.2.X. It works quite nicely, without all the crazy overhead that aD's system tried to provide. It's fast and efficient, uses templates for presentation and allows editors plenty of leeway in posting content.

It's very nice for 3.2.X, but 4 will be a big upgrade in general.

talli

Collapse
6: Response to File storage vs. static content. (response to 1)
Posted by Jon Griffin on 07/01/01 02:14 AM
I downloaded File Storage for 4.x and like it.

One major problem, (admittedly I haven't looked at the module that much) is that it is not sub-site aware. This is a major drawback to what is a great module for what I need.

I may look into it a bit and try to make it sub-site aware, but I have my doubts if it doesn't use any DB access.

Collapse
7: Response to File storage vs. static content. (response to 1)
Posted by Anton Bajri on 07/03/01 09:38 PM
Thanks a lot for all the pointers. I'll look at them and see how to use them to solve my problem.

Thanks again.

Jorge