Michael,
If the customer doesn't like the down time for small changes, it might be beneficial to cluster the app, so you can update it without any down time. That would probably be a lot easier/cheaper to set up than the major code changes you're considering. Just a thought. On Nov 4, 2010 9:06 AM, "Michael Gentry" <mgen...@masslight.net> wrote: > Hi Thiago, > > The biggest T5 project we have isn't really a CMS. We have data entry > wizards (say, ~10 pages/wizard) that the user steps through. Each > page is pretty much defined as far as navigation/data goes (and each > one sits in a common layout), but our customer every now and then > calls up and wants the wording/spacing/etc tweaked on a page. There > is only so much CSS in a database can do for this scenario. In these > cases we update the TML and redeploy the application and they don't > like the downtime. > > So, that's the scenario behind my thoughts of having the TML in the > database. For simple tweaks it might be nice. I realize there are > other issues (have to expire the page pool, versioning control, etc). > Just a thought I'm kicking around. :-) > > Thanks, > > mrg > > > On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 12:38 PM, Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo > <thiag...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I really don't think it's good idea to use Tapestry templates as a CMS >> instead of using Tapestry to implement a CMS with some templating language >> meant to be used by non-programmers. I hope this isn't what Michael wants . >> . . > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tapestry.apache.org >
