[plug] Suggestion for web site

[Cameron Patrick]

Craig Ringer wrote:

> > uh, mess? I was more thinking that an online management area for adding 
> > things is so much easier that manually changing the page all the time. 
> > However, if it's not set up properly it can be a mess lol.

*shrug* The source code for the pages is kept under revision control
and the site is rebuilt automatically when changes are made; there are
also provisions for having a "staging" site for changes that aren't
ready for prime time.  I find that being able to edit the site content
in my favourite text editor and simply commit my changes is a lot
easier than navigating the fancier "content management system" that
was in place previously (Post Nuke).  It also means that I can edit
the site easily when I'm not on-line (although obviously I can't make
the changes live).

> Even if it is set up "properly", using a database-backed site where a
> database is not really can add complexity and create rather than
> eliminate work.

Pretty much how I feel.

At the moment, most of the PLUG web site is written as straight HTML
with menus/headers/footers automatically generated.  The "events" page
is gradually heading towards database-dom, but because there are only
a few events it's implementated as a bunch of text files describing
the events plus Perl scripts to generate HTML summaries for the front
page, the main events page, and a page for each event.

The site itself is stored as a bunch of HTML pages.  Since our web
server is not particularly powerful, not having to dynamically
generate pages every time they're viewed is nice.

> On the other hand, specifically for the sort of thing you're describing
> I think a database would be ideal.

A "database", yes -- but not necessarily an SQL database.  (I say this
because [a] I don't know anything about SQL; [b] there aren't likely
to be /that/ many records; and [c] it doesn't really keep with the
'everything is a text file' layout of the current site.)

> My personal opinion on the matter is (a) why not just subscribe, and (b)
> such a page is fine by me but should prominently display record age and
> have a way of "confirming" records to update the timestamp.

Agreed.  Hmm, that confirming mechanism would probably be easier with
SQL though.  Maybe I retract my previous paragraph.

> In other words, it should be possible to look at the page and say
> "Hmm, these folks carried <blah> 9 months ago but no news since."

I have a nasty suspicion it would end up like the old PLUG site,
i.e. a few entries put in to start with, then no updates for ages.

Cameron.