I want to develop Document Manager application based on Alfresco. I am going to change there many things: user interface, language, may be some functions... But I don't know how to start, where I can get Alfresco source code, how can I rewrite codes with netBeans and how can I test my changes. This is my first serious project so I need any help. Where I can get Started ?!
A very popular way to get started is to work through my tutorials.
You don't need the source code, although it is available and helpful when you are troubleshooting or learning how something works. Instead of forking Alfresco you will write extensions that customize the platform. If you find yourself needing to compile Alfresco's source code, most likely you are doing something wrong.
Related
I have recently started learning about Alfresco Content Service.
I have some questions:
My understanding is that the standard way to add customization is to create AMP's.
Why create an amps for each customization instead of adding it directly to the configurations of ACS? Are there some benefits like not having to restart the service or something?
If apply_amps adds all custom amps to the alfresco server (.war files), won't there be a risk of customizations writing over each other?
E.g if two different amps change the same standard button in the share service.
I have found that there are 2 ways to add these customizations as well:
Add dependency to the pom file. (works only for .jar)
Actually compile the .amp and move it to the correct folder and run apply_amps.sh.
From the documentation it seems to my like AMP-files used to be the standard way of adding customization but that there have now been a move away from this in favor of using regular jar files and eventually in 7.1 and forward use JSON instead.
Yet other tutorials I find mentions things like "always use .amp". Which then seems strange if it contradicts the information on the official documentation.
Also I found something about adding amps through the share interface? Or must they always be added when building the server (.war)?
Could someone provide me with a thorough explanation of the best practice for applying customizations to the alfresco content service? Preferably with details regarding a live production setting.
Thanks for helping me make some of this clearer.
I'll try to give you helpful answers:
Making app packages (APMs or JARs) is much better than changing config manually. It's good for versioning, portability (TEST vs PROD or between projects), composition (you can add some addons witch are often very useful)... It is standard and good way how to build a web app.
About conflict of customizations, I'm not sure how it works. Is good practise always use own namespace for every AMP.
If AMPs write to the same file, result is always append (share-config-custom.xml can get be very big).
Problem about JARs and AMPs is simple. Old version of Alfresco supports more AMPs than JARs. Now it does not matter with way you use. Try to look inside these packages they look very similarly.
I never heard about adding AMPs through the share interface. Have you some source? Only thing which is similar is creating content model through Model manager (https://docs.alfresco.com/content-services/latest/tutorial/model/)
I use for PROD combination of AMPs and JARs. I have a lot of legacy code and addons in AMPs and new things in JARs. Alfresco work with them same...
I'm really keen to use the 2sxc environment on my website for a number of applications.
I'm currently looking at the Mobius forms.
What I'm wanting to do is create a ticket in ConnectWise rather than send an email, using the ConnectWise REST API.
Some of these questions might have obvious answers to someone who has been taught in these technologies, but I'm self-taught. When I went to school I learnt COBOL!
There is c# code in the application, but I can't see how you build and incorporate into the application. I forked the code and it seems to just code with no build.
There are live and staging folders with the same cshtml files. However, it seems a bit random when the live or staging is actually used. For example, I did a quick fix to the _Contact Form.cshtml so to fix the type that meant it always displayed the ReCaptcha warning, and I changed the live version, which didn't do anything, so I had to change the staging version.
I need to update the settings so that configure the ConnectWise API settings, I haven't been able to find where I can do this? I am still looking though.
I also need to store a private key in the settings. Is there a secure way I can do this?
PS. When I get my head around all this I'm happy to be a contributor
welcome to StackOverflow.
I'll try to give you some guidance to help you figure it out
Live and staging are folders meant to let you make changes while the users see the unmodified output. So a host-user sees the files from staging, others see what's in live. When you're done and all is tested, you copy from staging to live. This we call Polymorphism.
Polymorphism applies to both the cshtml as well as the api. So as a host-user, you'll be using staging/api/FormController to save/send.
There is no build process, everything is hot-compiled. That's one of the things that makes 2sxc so amazing. No Visual Studio, DLL or restarting the application ;) You'll love it.
Secure keys: there is no special secure key storage. We usually put it in the App-Settings, just like the MailChimp key you'll see there. We split it into two fields for very technical reasons, because we publish our code on github and that causes trouble when our code has API keys. But you can just use one field, assuming you don't plan on publishing the code on github.
So, this does not necessarily have to do directly with the code itself, although it is certainly a component of it.
I recently downloaded and installed the PayFlow Pro SDK for use with ASP.net
link here:
https://cms.paypal.com/us/cgi-bin/?cmd=_render-content&content_ID=developer/library_download_sdks
I installed this to my development machine. I also came accross this example code which I figured outlined the primary setup for basic Paypal Credit Card Transaction functionality.
link here:
http://www.codeproject.com/KB/aspnet/PayPal_PayflowPro.aspx
Anyways, I have two main questions
Do I have to install the SDK on the web hosts server in order to utilize the functionality of it? This seems to make sense, however, the tutorial in the second link suggests I create a web reference. Unless I am not understanding something here, wouldn't this just strictly work on my development machine, or at least, the functionality of the remote website that references this web reference to access the sdk, would this not be dependent on my computer running and broadcasting this information?
I just need clarification on how to install and/or access the sdk for use on a remote webhosts server (ie. do i need to install the sdk on the web-hosts server and if so, how would one go about doing so (ie. where to install, how to install)?).
Are there any other clean cut examples like my second link provides, that sort of outline the basic functionality of Payflow Pro? I find paypal's examples numerous and convoluted and their online slides/video tutorials to be tedious.
Perhaps I should just get off my lazy ass, but I have found peers from the general community to be much more informative in a way more efficient manner, so any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks!
For anyone interested, after enough searching I found a great example that notified me of all the fundamental processes to creating a basic transaction and allowed me the knowledge to further manipulate the sdk.
Check it -
Code Projects PayflowPro example and introduction.
We are a software development company and are using Wordpress for static portion of the web site. Naturally, all our workflow is built around version control: multiple developers -> continious integration -> staging -> deployment.
Our challenge with integrating Wordpress into our workflow is that its database is stuck like a bone in the throat: you cannot put it into the version control, easily roll back, promote from staging to production etc.
I am wondering what people do in similar situations? I would like to find a way to integrate WP into the development workflow and not the other way around :-)
Clarification we want to "develop" and test pages on the staging system and when ready then move them over to the production as part of the version upgrade process. We don't want to do full replication of the staging database to production.
That's a common question and one that I've worked on tackling. I've written some code to address these issues albeit the code's not ready for distribution. Basically the idea is to create scripts to import the content and then version control the scripts. (Actually my approach uses a custom import/export format designed to be easy to hand-modify, but the idea is similar.)
Anyway, there are some related questions over on StackOverflow's sister site WordPress Answers:
Questions tagged with the term [staging]
Questions tagged with the term [deploy]
UPDATE
Per the clarification, this would probably be helpful too:
Is there any way to draft a revision of a published page or post? What workarounds have you used?
Hope this helps.
-Mike
I've just hit the same problem. For now we are using MySQL dump files to export/import database content, but it gets ugly with several people working on the database changes.
Since the team that works on the project is all internal and consists of just a few people, I'm thinking into the direction of locking the database dump file in VCS. Subversion had this functionality built-in, but we are using git, which, I think, is conceptually opposite of any kind of locking.
Probably we'll have a workaround script with pre-commit hook to check for the existence of a lock file next to the dump. The person who committed the lock file will be the only one allowed to commit the dump. Once he finishes the work, he will need to commit the removal of the lock file.
It sounds ugly, I know. But I've thought about it for a while and don't see an elegant solution yet.
If you're only using WordPress for static content, then any tool/methodology for version controlling databases should work - for example, work the mysql command line tools into your CI and deployment routines.
I have looked through the related questions, and none of them have provided me the information I am looking for.
Currently the team I work on does deployments of individual .aspx (and .aspx.vb) files for bug fixes/enhancments. I am trying to affect change, as I really believe that deploying the "whole compiled site" is less error prone. As this is a significant change from the way things have been done, my suggestions have ben met with significant resistance.
As my google-fu has not been up to par lately, I was hoping the SO community could either tell me that I am off my rocker, and that there is nothing wrong with moving individual files, or point me to some really good resources which would allow me to make a stronger case.
Edit:
This has all been great info, and reinforces the arguments that I have already been making, can anyone argue the other side?
Deploying individual files for bug fixes and deployment is not a wise strategy. It sounds like you need a comprehensive build and deployment process. That doesn't mean it has to be complicated as there are some good tools available nowadays.
Build and deployment can get detailed, so as a minimum start try taking a look at the Microsoft Web Deployment Tool (http://www.iis.net/extensions/WebDeploymentTool). Install the tool on your build server and install it on your deployment server. Stage your ASP.NET content locally using the Visual Studio Publish command, then use the above tool to synchronize the entire package on the deployment server. I like this approach because it can be completely automated. When doing builds and deployments, aim for complete automation to reduce potential errors.
This is the bare minimum, but you will at least be certain that when specific files are changed, they are ALL synchronized on the deployment server.
Personally to me rolling back immediately is most important. Again website projects are very hard when it comes to track the changes.
you can find a good detailed comparison here. I am reproducing the article here.
1) Deployment. If you need in-place deployment, this model is perfect. However, it's not recommended since you are exposing your logic in clear text. So, anybody who have access to physical server can mess with your code and you never going to notice this. You can try to make precompiled web site, but you going to end up with a lot of dll and almost untouchable aspx files. Microsoft recognized this limitation and released Web Deployment Project tool.
2) You need to keep track of what did you change locally and what did you upload to production server. There are no versioning control. Visual Studio has Web Copy tool, but this tool fails to help. I had to build my own tool, which kept track of changes based on Visual Source Safe.
3) When you hit F5 for debug execution it takes merely 2 minutes to compile and execute whole project. Of course you can attach debugger to existing thread, but this is not an obvious solution.
4) If you ever try to generate controls on a fly you will hit first unsolvable limitation. How to reference other pages and controls. Page and control compilation happens on a per directory basis. On best case you going to get assembly for each directory, in worst each page or control is going to get its own assembly. If you need to reference another page from a control or another page you need to explicitly import it with the #Reference directive.
So for,
customControl = this.LoadControl("~/Controls/CustomUserControl.ascx") as CustomUserControl;
You need,
But what if you want to add something really dynamically and can't put all appropriate #Reference directives? Or What if you are creating server control and it doesn't have ascx file, so you don't have a place for #Reference ? Since each control has it's own assembly, it's almost impossible to do reflection.
Web Application Projects which re-appeared in Visual Studio 2005 SP1. They solves all issues mentioned above.
1) Deployment. You get just one dll per project. You can created redistributable packages and repeatable builds.You can have versioning and build scripts.
2) If you did code behind change you can upload just one dll. If you did aspx change you can upload just aspx change.
3) Execution takes 2-3 sec maximum.
4) Whole project is in one assembly, which helps reference any page or control. Conclusion. For any kind of serious work you should use Web Application Projects. Special thanks to Rick Strahl for his amazing article Compilation and Deployment in ASP.NET 2.0.
I agree with Rich.
Further information:
Deploying your SOURCE code ala the .vb files to the server is a BAD idea. Compile it. Obfuscate if you can, just don't deploy straight source. Imagine an attacker which gains access to the system. They could easily change your code and you might not ever notice. Yes, you can use a tool like reflector to decompile. But it's really hard to decompile a full site, make the changes you want, and put them back into production.
Deploying a single file might very well cause some type of problem in a related module. I'm guessing you guys don't really do QA. Tell them it's time to grow up.
Compiling your site will reduce JIT (just in time) compilation. Think performance.
I'm also going to guess that pretty much everyone has production server access. This is bad from the company's perspective as you have no controls in place. What happens when an employee decides to cause some havoc before leaving?
What you are describing is inline with Cowboy coding. Sure, it's fun to ride to the rescue but this style frequently blows everything up.
It's bad for rolling back. If you deploy as a web site vs web app, yeah you can do quick patches of one or two files, but what if you ever need to roll back to a previous version? Good luck tracking down all the files that were updated to make the new version. I much prefer the concept of a "version" for organizational reasons, and the compiled web app is much more inline with this than a "website" project.
We had this dilemma and ended up going with the compiled version mainly for the security reasons. If your site is external facing you could be compromising your security by allowing the vb files to be out there in plain text. I realize one could still get your code if they really wanted to but it would be an additional hurdle they would need to go through. If you use Visual Studio as your development environment you can publish the site pre-compiled and check the named assemblies option when publishing and this will essentially create a dll for each aspx page so you can do the one off page changes if necessary. This was a great feature we found as we were constantly updating the whole site and there were times when things would get updated that shouldn't. After using that feature we no longer had updates getting pushed that shouldn't. As far as rolling back I hope your using some type of Source control / versioning system. Team Foundation Server is great for versioning/source control but it is quite pricey.
What is the best deployment strategy depends a lot on what kind of environment you are working in, and what kind of developers you are working with.
Visual artists that started with graphic layout and worked towards programming are much more in tune to individual page generation and release. Also the .aspx.vb files are simply server side scripting, not really programming.
Programmers usually start at the command line and branch out to environments such as the web and understandably feel that good programming practices should be applied too the web, including standard test and release cycles (and compiled code).
If the site is in constant flux the individual pages would make more sense, but if you are required to deliver an installation package to your production group msi files are the way to go, since they can be easily backed out if necessary.
If you evaluate what your groups needs are, which includes the varied experience of everyone in your group, you should be able to convince either yourself or the group. This is not a matter of which is better, but which provides the best business model.