Are there any extra-small-php-footprint, files-based
(doesn't need mysql) content management systems out there?
....perhaps using some combination of Smarty-Template
and Fckeditor?

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 21:14:35 +0100, Victor Remose <david@not.net> wrote:

> Are there any extra-small-php-footprint, files-based
> (doesn't need mysql) content management systems out there?
> ...perhaps using some combination of Smarty-Template
> and Fckeditor?

Small footprint is the ultimate goal offcourse. I can't giva you any
advise without knowing your needs. Having Smarty will considerably enlarge
your footprint usually though, why is that a desired feature? And why the
preference fort Fckeditor?

There's no 'one size fits all' advise. You'll have to tell us your needs &
wants before we can even imagine what the setup should/could be like.
Anyone giving you advise based on this little advise is either extremely
biased or extremely ignorant.
--
Rik Wasmus

Rik Wasmus wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 21:14:35 +0100, Victor Remose <david@not.net> wrote:
>
>> Are there any extra-small-php-footprint, files-based
>> (doesn't need mysql) content management systems out there?
>> ...perhaps using some combination of Smarty-Template
>> and Fckeditor?
>
> Small footprint is the ultimate goal offcourse. I can't giva you any
> advise without knowing your needs. Having Smarty will considerably
> enlarge your footprint usually though, why is that a desired feature?
> And why the preference fort Fckeditor?
>
> There's no 'one size fits all' advise. You'll have to tell us your needs
> & wants before we can even imagine what the setup should/could be like.
> Anyone giving you advise based on this little advise is either extremely
> biased or extremely ignorant.

Smarty and fck were just an "for instance" concept.
I've fiddled with many CMS systems. Most seem hideously
complex and bloated for what little they deliver (textpattern,
for instance....big, hard to manage, delivers a little, but
not much).

Drupal is even more complex, but, well, sophisticated and well
done, I thought. Drupal is easy to work with, but only if you accept
their out-of-the-box behavior...it's difficult to work with
if you want to customize it. Drupal's complexity seems not to matter
performance wise (which is good) because their runtime caching is so
good. I'm rambling. But it's still huge and hard to handle.

I would like to see a small tarball page management system
that guarantees a consistent look and feel, that allows
the developer to work mostly with small bits and pieces: html
fragments, images, image captions, downloadable files, etc,
that get wrapped in a presentable fashion by software,
rather than the keyboard.

My intuition tells me this could be done with a minimal
amount of code, especially now that tables are gone:
spit out N div definitions, stuff contents into those
divs with a templating system of some kind, control how they look
with css. Do it with a tenth the amount of code most
as most existing systems employ.

Maybe I'll have to do it myself :-)

In news: 286dnblovpey5CvanZ2dnUVZ_vmlnZ2d@bresnan.com - Victor Remose
wrote :
>> Rik Wasmus wrote:
>>> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 21:14:35 +0100, Victor Remose <david@not.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Are there any extra-small-php-footprint, files-based
>>>> (doesn't need mysql) content management systems out there?
>>>> ...perhaps using some combination of Smarty-Template
>>>> and Fckeditor?
>>>
>>> Small footprint is the ultimate goal offcourse. I can't giva you any
>>> advise without knowing your needs. Having Smarty will considerably
>>> enlarge your footprint usually though, why is that a desired
>>> feature? And why the preference fort Fckeditor?
>>>
>>> There's no 'one size fits all' advise. You'll have to tell us your
>>> needs & wants before we can even imagine what the setup
>>> should/could be like. Anyone giving you advise based on this little
>>> advise is either extremely biased or extremely ignorant.
>>
>> Smarty and fck were just an "for instance" concept.
>> I've fiddled with many CMS systems. Most seem hideously
>> complex and bloated for what little they deliver (textpattern,
>> for instance....big, hard to manage, delivers a little, but
>> not much).
>>
>> Drupal is even more complex, but, well, sophisticated and well
>> done, I thought. Drupal is easy to work with, but only if you accept
>> their out-of-the-box behavior...it's difficult to work with
>> if you want to customize it. Drupal's complexity seems not to matter
>> performance wise (which is good) because their runtime caching is so
>> good. I'm rambling. But it's still huge and hard to handle.
>>
>> I would like to see a small tarball page management system
>> that guarantees a consistent look and feel, that allows
>> the developer to work mostly with small bits and pieces: html
>> fragments, images, image captions, downloadable files, etc,
>> that get wrapped in a presentable fashion by software,
>> rather than the keyboard.
>>
>> My intuition tells me this could be done with a minimal
>> amount of code, especially now that tables are gone:
>> spit out N div definitions, stuff contents into those
>> divs with a templating system of some kind, control how they look
>> with css. Do it with a tenth the amount of code most
>> as most existing systems employ.
>>
>> Maybe I'll have to do it myself :-)

If you do find or do it yourself please post back as this is something I've
been looking for.In the mean-time I'm using /playing with "cms made simple".

Chris


--
Superb hosting & domain name deals http://dn-22.co.uk
The Handyman http://www.looker.me.uk