As a developer a code-first approach is a lovely idea but I’ve never used uSiteBuilder so I can’t really comment on whether that’s the best approach or not. But here’s another way to think about it, could we not make a way to take the document type structure out of the database?
I see one of the advantages that uSiteBuilder brings is the ability to source-control your document types, but it’s still some-what of a hack so maybe there’s an even better way.
(Just thinking out loud here)
Aaron Powell
MVP - Internet Explorer (Development) | FunnelWeb Team Member
http://apowell.me | http://twitter.com/slace | Skype: aaron.l.powell | Github | BitBucket
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Umbraco development" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/umbraco-dev/-/h--0Wf5VeYQJ.
To post to this group, send email to umbra...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to umbraco-dev...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/umbraco-dev?hl=en.
Agreed, uSitebuilder is absoluteluly great for productivity, but it does some whacky things on app pool startup and you have to be careful doing things in the right order. I LOVE the idea of getting macros/doctypes out of the db and onto disk though!
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to umbraco-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/umbraco-dev?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Umbraco development" group.
To post to this group, send email to umbra...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to umbraco-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Umbraco development" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/umbraco-dev/-/HIp1Spi6Ot8J.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to umbraco-dev...@googlegroups.com.
I’m going to put this up for an open space as well tomorrow and I’ll make sure any notes back in this thread
Aaron Powell
MVP - Internet Explorer (Development) | FunnelWeb Team Member
http://apowell.me | http://twitter.com/slace | Skype: aaron.l.powell | Github | BitBucket
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Umbraco development" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/umbraco-dev/-/HIp1Spi6Ot8J.
To post to this group, send email to umbra...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to umbraco-dev...@googlegroups.com.
Code-first is a nice idea, but I think being able to have strongly-typed properties in Razor would be my first wish.
Also, whilst on the subject of doctypes, I'd love a way of being able to change the doctype of a page once it's been created. I know it has risks, but it is a *real* pain if you need to go back and change the doctype of a page, especially if it has children etc.
With you on that idea however as discussed in the session there is still a risk associated with changes made through the UI not being brought back into the dev environment / source control.
Simon
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Umbraco development" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/umbraco-dev/-/gu2-mKRxgJIJ.
To post to this group, send email to umbra...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to umbraco-dev...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/umbraco-dev?hl=en.
Hey all,
We had an open space about this yesterday, the minutes are available here: http://umbra.co/minutes2012
Aaron Powell
MVP - Internet Explorer (Development) | FunnelWeb Team Member
http://apowell.me | http://twitter.com/slace | Skype: aaron.l.powell | Github | BitBucket
From: umbra...@googlegroups.com [mailto:umbra...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Morten Christensen
Sent: Saturday, 16 June 2012 2:07 PM
To: umbra...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Here's a wacky thought...
Tim and Darren,
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Umbraco development" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/umbraco-dev/-/dzJ_B7uPMV8J.
But here’s another way to think about it, could we not make a way to take the document type structure out of the database?
Hey Richard - great suggestion - is it possible to rename the topic to something other than "here's a wacky thought" thoughts??
On Monday, 18 June 2012 23:58:20 UTC+1, Richard Terris wrote:Could be the first time I've made a suggestion to "Umbraco" that's been taken semi-seriously :-)Yay!!
On Monday, 18 June 2012 23:50:04 UTC+1, Barry Fogarty wrote:Really excited there is so much interest here in this topic!
My view is we should extend uSiteBuilder for now - Simon and Morten have worked on this recently to include Datatypes, a sync switch and it also already allows for using doctype objects in a strongly typed way in razor scripts. Apparently the original devs (Sasa and a colleague from Vega) are back on board too due to v5 getting canned.
Moving doctypes out of the DB in the long run sounds great (as long as the Code First approach is compaitble with a UI-based coctype creation process) but is probably not realistic in the short/medium term. When that time comes hopefully we can take a lot of learnings from this excersize into that.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Umbraco development" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/umbraco-dev/-/drMu3erOQnkJ.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Umbraco development" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/umbraco-dev/-/VkrWEH1jAjwJ.
I believe if we were to have an XML schema then the XML would be discoverable, though I may be wrong on this front? For example; web.config in visual studio.
It should be pretty easy to store the document types on the file-system, you can always catch the "save" event. I did a small PoC 2(?) years ago, in the train home from CG10. It had been open session Friday, and we had been talking about deployment, source control and working in teams.The other way around, when the application starts, you could compare the files on disk with the data in the database, and changes on the file-system could be caught by a file-system watcher I think?
The other way around, when the application starts, you could compare the files on disk with the data in the database, and changes on the file-system could be caught by a file-system watcher I think?
Currently uSiteBuilder causes a massive performance hit when the application recycles because of the work involved in synchronising changes to the database, I suspect that this can be optimised to a degree but the impact is significant enough even on relatively small sites and so for larger sites this can be a real issue. This is something that we may be able to look at as part of intended work on developing uSiteBuilder further.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to umbraco-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
I was musing on something similar regarding for example, an XML structure which could represent a document type with tabs and properties (along with their data type definitions) and then an executable/class library that could be implemented as part of a build rule to apply the changes to a given umbraco instance.This would be backwards compatible with the existing database-based document type storage and would also allow a code-first approach.These XML files (i'm not a big fan of XML but it's a good way to store relational data in a text file) could also be code-first generated if required using some form of a fluent API.While I disagree that uSiteBuilder should be part of the core, Aaron raises a point that it would be nice to source control your document types.Taking them out of the database is one way, but I personally feel they should be in the database - since they are the metadata that describes the schema/structure of the data that is stored in the DB.Of course, uSiteBuilder does offer more than just source control/code first generation of your document types; it also provides strongly typed classes that map to those document types that you can use to query data as well as it's own inheritance structure for masterpages I believe.In my opinion, This stuff definitely needs to remain external to coreGarethOn Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 8:44 AM, Aaron Powell <m...@aaron-powell.com> wrote:
As a developer a code-first approach is a lovely idea but I’ve never used uSiteBuilder so I can’t really comment on whether that’s the best approach or not. But here’s another way to think about it, could we not make a way to take the document type structure out of the database?
I see one of the advantages that uSiteBuilder brings is the ability to source-control your document types, but it’s still some-what of a hack so maybe there’s an even better way.
(Just thinking out loud here)
Aaron Powell
MVP - Internet Explorer (Development) | FunnelWeb Team Member
http://apowell.me | http://twitter.com/slace | Skype: aaron.l.powell | Github | BitBucket
From: umbra...@googlegroups.com [mailto:umbraco-dev@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Richard Terris
Sent: Thursday, 14 June 2012 9:41 AM
To: umbra...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Here's a wacky thought...
I saw / heard in the keynote that some of the best packages are to be built into the core, such as uComponents.
I'm not 100% convinced this is a great idea. I personally use uComponents and I think the majority do - but - for the minority of people who don't use it, should it be there taking up room?
A wacky idea I have - I use uSiteBuilder for all of my v4 apps, as I enjoy the code first approach, and really hate XSLT.
Razor is great too, but I feel this really should be used in conjunction with MVC.
So, V5 was supposed to deliver a more code first paradigm, why not learn from that and build a uSiteBuilder type library, where document types can be created in code - or add uSiteBuilder as part of the core?
Again, as with uComponents, I'm in 2 minds as to whether anything should be made part of the core, or left as optional plugins, but if this is the way we're going to go - let's think about uSiteBuilder too
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Umbraco development" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/umbraco-dev/-/h--0Wf5VeYQJ.
To post to this group, send email to umbra...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to umbraco-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/umbraco-dev?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Umbraco development" group.
Minutes from the open space are here: http://umbra.co/minutes2012
- I don’t think we need to take doc types out of the database
- Exposing doc types through a factory would mean that any implementation could be used
o Someone can make a code first, someone can make an xml based one
- This has less breaking changes and IMO requires less work
Aaron Powell
MVP - Internet Explorer (Development) | FunnelWeb Team Member
http://apowell.me | http://twitter.com/slace | Skype: aaron.l.powell | Github | BitBucket
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Umbraco development" group.
To post to this group, send email to umbra...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to umbraco-dev...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/umbraco-dev/-/VCqudZsFzGwJ.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to umbraco-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Umbraco development" group.
To post to this group, send email to umbra...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to umbraco-dev...@googlegroups.com.
- Morten Christensen
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to umbraco-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Is there any reason the backoffice couldn't just generate code-first classes files rather than xml?
Just to let people think about it, wouldn't code-first prevent multiple inheritance? c# being a single inheritance language after all.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to umbraco-dev...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/umbraco-dev/-/11nwsGTbfVwJ.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to umbraco-dev...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/umbraco-dev/-/H2XFVhbX-xwJ.
So just gonna answer all of the previous comments after my last one, sorry its a bit long :
The only thing I'm not sure of is if you go down the road of implementing multiple-inheritance for DocTypes then how will this work as C# classes (given, as has been mentioned, C# doesn't support multiple class inheritance). Morten, I believed, mentioned interfaces (which is the standard C# way), but of course these need to have concrete implementations to actually be useful. Thoughts?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Umbraco development" group.
To post to this group, send email to umbra...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to umbraco-dev...@googlegroups.com.To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/umbraco-dev/-/yWnsNsPwW38J.
I think it's one that has slipped under the radar.
Might need to kill this thread and start again, or flag it on issue tracker and link to this thread?
The roadmap is available, but I don't think I've seen any code first things yet. Did I miss it or do we might have to wait for v7 for that?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Umbraco development" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/umbraco-dev/-/BqmWT26RIVgJ.
To post to this group, send email to umbra...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to umbraco-dev...@googlegroups.com.
I think it's one that has slipped under the radar.
Might need to kill this thread and start again, or flag it on issue tracker and link to this thread?
On Jul 13, 2012 1:01 PM, <jbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
The roadmap is available, but I don't think I've seen any code first things yet. Did I miss it or do we might have to wait for v7 for that?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Umbraco development" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/umbraco-dev/-/BqmWT26RIVgJ.
To post to this group, send email to umbra...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to umbraco-dev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/umbraco-dev/-/WBiWrnXOXp0J.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to umbraco-dev...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/umbraco-dev/-/bsMUZx-ynN8J.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to umbraco-dev...@googlegroups.com.
Good point Pete - my initial suggestion was to involve them anyway or at least use what they'd built.
I guess we need to wait for a few new releases first?
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/umbraco-dev/-/eUTwN8nshXEJ.
To post to this group, send email to umbra...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to umbraco-dev...@googlegroups.com.