Subscribe: RSS
  • Newcomer, interested, a question. I’ve read your terrific FAQs, forums, reviews, and tutorials. I’m a programmer, but need only basic templating for now. Can I use MODx, legacy or Revolution, without MySQL?

    The philosophy behind MODx is attractive - standards, control, batteries included, flex. The problem is mandatory MySQL. I don’t want it for various reasons; one is web host surcharges, another is overkill/slowdown. MySQL seems to ’infect’ every CMS.

    Can MODx use SQLite or just pull files from disk? The Revolution release will have DB abstraction. But right now, even the Revolution alpha only works with MySQL, if I follow. I’d run alpha code if that’s wrong.

    I need some of this flavor,

    http://casm.portologic.hu/about.html
    http://wiki.laniuscms.org/index.php/Introduction
    http://phpsqlitecms.net/
    http://www.rebol.org/st-topic-details.r?tag=domain//html

    Another angle is local development. I want to make the site locally and upload. There isn’t much need for dynamic PHP. We’re talking basic CSS menus and JavaScript forms like http://www.hanewin.net/encrypt/

    Please enlighten me, and thank you.
    • Eventually Revolution will be work with several DB options (if I remember correctly) but at first only mysql (again I could be wrong). 096x only works with mysql.
        [font=Verdana]Shane Sponagle | [wiki] Snippet Call Anatomy | MODx Developer Blog | [nettuts] Working With a Content Management Framework: MODx

        Something is happening here, but you don't know what it is.
        Do you, Mr. Jones? - [bob dylan]
      • I was afraid of that.

        Possibly this could do the trick.
        http://sqlrelay.sourceforge.net/sqlrelay/dropin/mysql.html

        But I may just tweak raw templating code from outside the CMS universe.
        • The problem is mandatory MySQL. I don’t want it for various reasons; one is web host surcharges, another is overkill/slowdown. MySQL seems to ’infect’ every CMS.
          In what way? Surcharges and slowdown really depend on what host you choose - I’m not really understanding why without a search for a good host, that MODx (and MySQL) wouldn’t fit. There is plenty of low-cost hosting out there that provides excellent performance, just needs a bit of research (search the forums, plenty of recommendations for MODx-compatible hosting options)
            Garry Nutting
            Senior Developer
            MODX, LLC

            Email: support@modx.com
            Twitter: @garryn
            Web: modx.com
          • I have to agree with garryn. I’ve never used a host that charged extra for MySQL. You don’t say where you are, but in the USA, high-quality shared hosting with free MySQL is < $10/month.


            As for the speed, MODx caches the pages for you so most of your content could be coming directly from the cache without any MySQL access at all. The speed penalty is minimal.

              Get my Book: MODX:The Official Guide
              MODX info for everyone: http://bobsguides.com/MODx.html
              My MODX Extras
              Arvixe Community Liaison.
            • http://www.dokuwiki.org/faq:database
              http://www.pmwiki.org/wiki/PmWiki/FlatFileAdvantages
              http://www.web-app.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi?action=viewnews&id=44
              http://www.greenash.net.au/posts/thoughts/drupal-lite-drupal-minus-its-parts
              http://thinkvitamin.com/features/redefining-content-management/
              http://www.hiveminds.co.uk/?p=35375

              My opinion: 90% of all current blogs, web sites that use MySQL shouldn’t be using it. Slowdown is noticeable vs. flat file CMS sites. See web-app.net for contrast (and I hate Perl). Firefox’s SQLite is dog slow even from ramdisk. Things were better before. I’m a sysadmin, I know what I’m doing with tuneup.

              You find most CMS web sites won’t eat their own dogfood; they use wikis. To me that says something. We also have Google; need for SQL queries is much reduced, even for the large content sites. Just use Google.

              Where SQL belongs is exactly where the links above say it belongs - millions of small data items updated frequently in private databases. The only form of CMS content near that requirement is a forum.

              To each his own. I consider SQL archaic mainframe tech dressed as modern hotness. Google doesn’t use SQL, but MapReduce. Good for them, but they want to pawn another buzzword, ’cloud computing’ - or, client/server. Supposedly, the PC rescued us from that. It’s all rehash from prehistory. Just depends what you’re trying to sell.

              I personally don’t want Yet Another Language when I have already HTML, CSS, JavaScript, and PHP. I can live without SQL and DB abstraction layers just to pull text snippets from disk. Thanks anyway, boys.
              • Quote from: QnA at Mar 13, 2009, 09:07 PM

                My opinion: 90% of all current blogs, web sites that use MySQL shouldn’t be using it. Slowdown is noticeable vs. flat file CMS sites. See web-app.net for contrast (and I hate Perl). Firefox’s SQLite is dog slow even from ramdisk. Things were better before. I’m a sysadmin, I know what I’m doing with tuneup.
                You sure? Do you use query caching, or memcached?

                You find most CMS web sites won’t eat their own dogfood; they use wikis.
                What? Where are these "most CMS websites"? Most all the CMS websites I know use their own CMSes for their website. And I work in this business.

                To me that says something. We also have Google; need for SQL queries is much reduced, even for the large content sites. Just use Google.
                Use Google for what? For finding sites that use SQL?

                Where SQL belongs is exactly where the links above say it belongs - millions of small data items updated frequently in private databases. The only form of CMS content near that requirement is a forum.
                What are you talking about? SQL is a database language. Databases are designed for storing any time of data format. A good CMS also breaks down content into "millions of small data items". You’re not making much sense.

                To each his own. I consider SQL archaic mainframe tech dressed as modern hotness.
                You’re entitled to your opinion; but I would argue that you are completely, utterly wrong.

                Google doesn’t use SQL, but MapReduce. Good for them, but they want to pawn another buzzword, ’cloud computing’ - or, client/server. Supposedly, the PC rescued us from that. It’s all rehash from prehistory. Just depends what you’re trying to sell.
                Google may use MapReduce, sure, but that doesn’t make it any better than SQL. I can post plenty of articles that show MapReduce as crap. It’s only useful in certain situations.

                I personally don’t want Yet Another Language when I have already HTML, CSS, JavaScript, and PHP.
                HTML is debatable as a language, CSS is ridiculously simple. JS is tough until you understand closures and browser idiosyncrasies. PHP is harder, I’ll give you that. SQL is a piece of cake.

                I can live without SQL and DB abstraction layers just to pull text snippets from disk. Thanks anyway, boys.
                Sure, go for it - but have fun sorting, indexing, and searching those on a reasonable timeframe. And forget multi-server hosting, alternative caches, or other forms of load distribution. And good luck trying to run a million-hit-a-day site on all those file_get_contents() or include calls.

                Were you here to ask a question, or unload an agenda?
                  shaun mccormick | bigcommerce mgr of software engineering, former modx co-architect | github | splittingred.com
                • Damn straight I’m entitled to an opinion after all these decades.

                  The SQL-CMS sites use wikis for docs, not home page. So why aren’t they happy with SQL for that content? Think about it. Don’t write something for me, I already know, and won’t be back here.

                  You bet I’ll have fun indexing. A lot more than you. No worries about normal forms and DB admin rights to store text snippets for a few dozen web pages. And just look at the swift timeframes from the Perl web-app chart.

                  Look at your MODx motto - MODx frees people do what they want. Except they must use SQL?

                  I’m glad you kids enjoy thinking in N languages with the excuse that some aren’t hassle for macho geeks and why don’t I just get hip. Well, fine. I believe in KISS and limited exposure. My gray cells may not be as young as yours. I could get deeptech and blow away this silliness, but why. Even my SQL gurus don’t defend SQL this agressively. They know better.

                  For me it’s just a retro fad sponsored by MySQL, Inc. and over-hyped by crowd behavior. There are better ways to organize CMS content, I just want a system that lets me do things my way. MODx ain’t it. So thanks for the chitchat, that much is worth knowing.
                  • We slaves can go here ---> http://www.w3schools.com/sql/default.asp cool
                      @hawproductions | http://mrhaw.com/
                    • Quote from: QnA at Mar 15, 2009, 12:12 AM

                      Damn straight I’m entitled to an opinion after all these decades.
                      As we are to ours here in this community, where you might do better to remember you are a guest. You did come here and post your opinion "out of the blue", so I have to wonder, like splittingred did, why you even bothered to if you were not looking for a SQL-powered CMS product in the first-place.

                      Quote from: QnA at Mar 15, 2009, 12:12 AM

                      For me it’s just a retro fad sponsored by MySQL, Inc. and over-hyped by crowd behavior. There are better ways to organize CMS content, I just want a system that lets me do things my way. MODx ain’t it. So thanks for the chitchat, that much is worth knowing.
                      Me thinks you drank too much of someone’s kool-aid along the way, but have fun rolling your own CMS or using one of the many flat-file CMS products that are already available for you to explore. Or you could go back to CODASYL and continue to dream of a future without relational and/or object databases.