CMS Made Simple Forums

RQ wrote: a) would you reconsider the patch now, please?

    Sorry, with 1.2 entering beta immenantly, no, it would not be prudent. 

RQ wrote: b) what if I create a patch for the 2.0 branch the same way?

    You're free to create the patch for 2.0 as much as you want (I wouldn't do it now though, the 2.0 branch is in lots of flux at the moment).

RQ wrote: c) would you accept a recomendation of using shorter table names than in 1.2 in your new schema? As I said before, Oracle has a limit of 30 characters per table/sequence name, and, particularly, a string
"additional_htmlblob_users_seq" is already 29 characters long, hence leaving only one character available for the table prefix. I suggest that you strip at least 3 more characters from this name. Again, I don't ask you to support Oracle, but this would certainly make it easier to install CMSMS on it

Yeah, this sounds reasonable, and we'll probably discuss it in an upcoming dev team meating.

RQ wrote: d) what is the status of 2.0 at the moment?

    Rapidly changing

RQ wrote: e) you said the news content type is deprecated. Did you talk about the whole News module? What should I use instead of it then?

As cyberman said, the news content type, not the news module.  use {news} instead of selecting 'News' from the pulldown when creating new content.

calguy1000 wrote:

RQ wrote: c) would you accept a recomendation of using shorter table names than in 1.2 in your new schema?

Yeah, this sounds reasonable, and we'll probably discuss it in an upcoming dev team meating.

If all seq tables will be killed like Ted told us - we have 4 chars free  .

Ted wrote: - I'm systematically removing the _seq tables from the system.  Current svn has them removed from 5 key tables (content, content_props, groups, users and templates) already and I'm hoping to get to all of them for 2.0.

Yeah, but there are alot of other modules, NMS, FEU, Selfreg, calendar, ..... that will run into this problem too...
His problems wouldn't be over with just the core.

conclusion: oracle is antiquated, old, microsoft-ish, technology....  that although it does provide useful, efficient databases (unlike microsoft) needs to get with the times (microsoft should just die )

Just FYI: I've updated my patch on forge. It now also replaces some calls to Execute() method of the database  to calls to SelectLimit() method where limiting queries is needed. And I think I have an installation of CMSMS almost perfectly working with Oracle already. The only thing that is left is that _seq table which I can live without anyway.

calguy1000 wrote: Yeah, but there are alot of other modules, NMS, FEU, Selfreg, calendar, ..... that will run into this problem too...
His problems wouldn't be over with just the core.

Maybe we should set a new standard without seq tables.

AdoDB (not lite) supports a lot of databases (20!). But Adodb eats a lot of performance. So it makes IMHO only fewer sense to use "only" MySQL and PostgreSQL.

From my limited skills I see the great idea behind Adodb to have a database layer which can be used for access to most used databases. Think if we use adodb we should really use it or use it not (means "Connect CMSms to all databases" ).

If not it would be easier (and faster) to use direct access via PDO to postgres and mysql (and sqlite). PDO is a part of PHP and often updated. As we can see with security update 1.1.3 we would have some fewer bug sources.

And it seams Adodb lite is out of support  (the same as template lite).

OK, I'm thinking loud - only some ideas ...

Ted has already migrated CMS 2.0 to use adodb regular.
I'm hoping that we get sqlite support.  (I am pushing it in all the dev team meetings).  but oracle.... not sure.
We, in any event, can't officially support a database (oracle) until we have an upstanding, longstanding dev team member that uses it.

One more note:
According to the manual of AdoDB, it supports passing certain options to the connection. It would be great to see them supported. I'm particularly concerned about the connection charset, because it's not cool to see damaged text in the database...

Hello,

I like to "think loudly" too, so :

-I welcome RQ's "CMSms Oracle ready" feature patch as a feature (Oracle users would be able to choose CMSms) and as marketing (CMSms is not a poor CMS but a powerful one and the Oracle name is associated with power).
-I agree with calguy1000 that this patch is too late for 1.2 and that the devteam would require Oracle resources (hardware, software, manpower/time, support...) to care to be Oracle ready.
-I like the "database abstraction" layer providing database agnosticism. It would be cool if the CMSms code would be independant of MySQL and if it worked out of the box with MySQL, PostgreSQL, SQLite, Oracle... why not Access ?
-In fact, I'm very interested in "in file" databases like mdb or SQLite (if I have understood it correctly) because it makes small sites easy to back up, move and restore. (I mean small=low audience)
-Loudly is loudly, I'm a PostgreSQL fan.

Have fun polishing 1.2 and coding 2.0 !

Pierre M.