General Community > Off-Topic

WebsiteBaker Stactic Pages?

<< < (5/5)

bfuller:
 (Quote) Yeah, it's a bit off topic indeed, although it seems that the information bfuller came up with just confirms my explanation. He just misinterprets it in my opinion. The info he quoted is not fully correct either. But ok, let's not dwell on that.

 Argos I know you may know WebSite Baker and even help code some of it, but the information I quoted was not mine and I think it was from a little better authority then you are when it comes to web design, but then again that is my opinion!!! 

I am a bit curious how one could be off topic in the Guest and Off Topic Forum?

Now I see where a lot of the worry about the future of WebsiteBaker stems from.  If Ryan was having to work with that kind of arrogance, I can see how things where hard to get done. (My way or the highway - I know it all never works.)


Good Idea crnogora this wasn't going anywhere.  Just have to agree to disagree.
To be honest most of what I was trying to find out I have picked up on my own, by just putting WebsiteBaker in a sub domain and just playing with it.
What I am trying to do is make a store front for a Jeep and Ford Dealership - Parts & Accessories Dept.
What I have done to far is use Web Site Bakers Editor to write the description of the parts and accessories the order number, cost ,picture of the item (That being what I call Static Page) Doesn't change!!! Only Admin. can make changes to that part of the site. (Shopping Cart is only thing that requires a data base and that is handled within the shopping cart)
Once I have all the item description in, I use a commercial Shopping Cart to write a script that can be put into the page to add things to the shopping cart (would never use an Open Source Shopping Cart because of the security risks)
Plan to add a Live Help Program and a Comments Page (guest book) that will require a Data Base. But I have not started that yet. But from what I see so far I don’t think it is going to be a program. WebsiteBaker is a nice simple to use CMS!!!

I am sorry if I offended anyone that was not my attention, but felt I was being attacked by some when I only came for help.  I appreciate the first few replies in the thread, I think they were being very good for a  community forum that really is there to help

This ends this Thread!!!

deb01:
well let me say that I have found another purpose for these static pages.

Due to security reasons and for stability I would like to render all websites of my projects on my server and copy them to webspace without PHP support.

Therefore I wouldn't have to care about security flaws (=plain HTML) and would not have any problems with a MySQL Server that goes down or anything like that. Additionally, plain HTML webspace is cheaper ;-)

Of course I can't have an online shop, a contact form or anything.

Maybe something could be implemented in one of next versions. I think this would be a great feature.

kweitzel:
Hi Brian,

please do not get upset about a simple definition. Just one thing though:

You are talking about the content of the page (does not change or at least not often), Argos is talking about the technology used to create a page. In that definition a static page sits readily assembled on the filesystem while a "dynamic" page is assembled on the fly.

In WB there where discussions about a caching system which assembles a page and then stores it on the harddisc for a more speedy delivery (like a static HTML page). When a page is changed in the admin backend the pre-assembled (cached HTML page) page is then recreated.

So, in some ways you where both right.

Hope this explains it a bit better ...

cheers

Klaus

Argos:
Nice summary Klaus.

Fburger: I am sorry if I came across as arrogant, that was not my intention. But in my opinion it was just a little discussion about definition, and in a discussion you can say to the other "I think you're wrong about this or that". Can't you? It's not meant to be arrogant, I assure you. Anyway, Klaus answered it pretty well. This cache system is not there yet, but who knows what the future will bring. It would certainly be a nice addition.

One remark about open source versus commercial. You imply that open source software has per definition more security risks than commercial software. I doubt that (without being arrogant). It all depends on the quality of the coding (and other factors), not on the type of software. Maybe open source is even safer, because many more people are working on it. Just think of Microsoft that is patching its products constantly. Very commercial and very not open source, yet security holes are constanly discovered and abused by hackers :wink:  As far as I know, WB does a very decent job with regards to security.

WebBird:
It's really hard to explain what "static" means, particularly in the context of a CMS. I think this discussion has shown that there are many different interpretations, and all of them are correct in one way.

In fact, there are also many different definitions of what CMS means. Some say that workflow has to be part of the CMS to be a CMS, but WB does not have a real workflow. Some say that storing content of nearly every format (Doc, PDF, XML, whatever) is what makes a CMS, so WB is not a CMS. :wink:

I think the most common definition of "static" in the context of a web page is that it means "delivered as stored". When a visitor calls a "page", the webserver reads a file stored on the disk and delivers it "as is". It is _not_ interpreting something, it is _not_ calling a script, it is _not_ doing anything else but reading a file and sending it to the client.

This said, every content delivered by a CMS is dynamic.

I think this is what most of the posters meant. :wink: Anyway, the understanding of "static" may be different from different points of view.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page