To get the core question out of the way first: has anyone used the Ektron content APIs and can comment on using them to get Ektron CMS content instead of using native Ektron controls? I'd like to use these APIs in an ASP.NET MVC site.
Now the background: we have a client with an existing site that is a fusion of Ektron (for basic content) and a custom database/codebase for other pieces of functionality (product data, ecommerce, etc). We need to build what amounts to a microsite for a specific product line, with the following requirements:
Drive as much basic content (copy) as possible from the Ektron CMS
Most other content would come from the custom database
Ecommerce functionality should integrate with the main site's cart (the cart is custom-built and can be extended if necessary)
Login status may need to be shared (I know there is already an SO question that addresses this piece)
I'd rather not struggle with WebForms and attempting to style Ektron controls, so I would like to recommend that we build the subsite as a standalone MVC application. Are the Ektron content APIs robust enough to support such an approach, or would this route just lead to tears and broken dreams?
Any insight is appreciated. Thanks!
I coded a site with a large proportion of non-Ektron controls, but I used Webforms.MVP rather than MVC. This allowed me to mix-and-match MVP controls with the Ektron controls.
Ektron has got a couple APIs - there is an older web service based API which should be accessible from a non-Webforms project. I am not sure if it is possible to access the newer APIs (i.e. the non-web service API and the newer Framework API) fomr a non-webforms project. You would probably want to do a quick proof of concept for this to confirm.
The robustness of the Ektron APIs is a bit variable. Generally I have found dealing with simple HTML content to be good. Membership/login isn't too bad either. From memory, I've had problems with the more obscure components - eCommerce, Taxonomies, Blogs, Calendars. Generally, the problems include-
Empty properties
Lack of documentation
The newer Framework API (initial release in v8.0, covering Content and Folders, with a full release in v8.5, due in Aug 2011) is a lot easier to use, though I've still had occasional problems with empty properties.
Overall, as long as you're sticking to HTML content, you should be fine, provided you can access the API from a MVC project.
Related
I am trying to integrate a CMS into an existing ASP.NET Web site built with .aspx files and .aspx.cs code behind files (not compiled).
My research indicated that my best candidate is N2 CMS.
My ideal approach is to configure the editor with various editable content types and have my existing pages and user controls use the API to retrieve the content and place it pro grammatically into containers.
I couldn't find how this can be done, anyone have any idea how and if can this be done ?
Is there any other CMS that is better suited for the task?
We have had this exact setup existing web applications (WebForms + MVC) integrated with N2 in the same manner as you have described in previous projects and it was fairly simple to implement, but by now we have switched to using umbraco for the same purpose for the following reason:
better support (larger community)
better backend editors
more ready avilable modules (even commercial supported ones)
richer backend ( proper multi language support)
configurable rather than code oriented (this is a pro/con depending what you need)
One important note:
Don't waste time host the CMS + the actual application in the within the same ASP.NET application. We have all of the installations separate and we would have not done it differently looking back, especially when you have existing web applications with routing etc. in place already. The CMS is just going to mess this up at some point. Also this is not CMS specific.
Traditional CMS are pretty intrusive, they dictate you the way you must build your system. And if you already have a web site, and just want to add some Content Management functionality into it you are out of luck - all traditional CMS want you to demolish your old web site and rebuild everything from scratch.
It's actually a good idea to keep CMS and web application separate. In that case all you need is some kind of markers on your web pages telling the CMS what should be manageable. "Software plus Service" solution. This is what ElasticWCM (http://www.elasticWCM.com) is trying to do.
For a web site developer ElasticWCM is just a set of ASP.NET controls you can wrap around your Html to make the content manageable. When you click on the "Edit Page" button on the PageToolbar control you get redirected to the rich page editor where you can manage all your content fields. Nothing to install, just reference the controls' DLL.
You can't get less intrusive than that. As a bonus you receive all bells and whistles of a full-scale multilingual CMS and a bunch of unique features.
We have had a fair amount of luck with Sitefinity from Telerik. It's .net based, easy to extend, and has a good collection of plugins. On the downside it is pricey.
Let me explain first that I'm new to web development and it's not my area of interest. A few months ago I made a quick research of various web technologies and I decided that I will learn ASP.NET - Web Forms. This has been working out for me for a simple site - I like the master pages idea and the modularity idea supported by custom controls. I made a few custom controls that I surely wouldn't find on the internet.
Problems began when I started to look for a blog that I could elegantly integrate into my existing master page with my existing themes and styles. The best thing I could find was BlogEngine.NET. But it is designed as a standalone blogging system, not as a control (I just want to display the posts and comments). Isolating what I want from the code base and integrating it with my web app is going to take unknown amount of work and time.
So I turned towards CMS with a blog - Orchard looked very promising. Then I realised that integrating my own Web Forms into Orchard is almost an impossible task for me (definitely not something I have time for). What do I think is the problem here? The CMS is not providing reusable components for easy integration in the spirit of Web Forms - it locks me in - as long as I stick to what they offer I am safe, but once I want to integrate my own Web Form - it's a no go.
So, do you know any NET CMS that allows integration of third party web controls just like you would do without CMS? Or better still - is just a collection of isolated, reusable components?
I realize this is an old thread, but don't know if you ever got the info you needed. If you are OK with commercial software, you might consider SiteFinity (by Telerik) as it uses master pages to generate layout, and webforms user controls for custom code. If you are more in need of an open source/free product, you might consider looking at MojoPortal or CarrotCake CMS.
I've started to wondering whether ASP.NET Webforms/MVC even have a place in the web developers toolbox anymore... It seems that CMS systems like Umbraco have replaced the web developers job. Yes I know that those CMS systems are built with ASP.NET Webforms/MVC - however is there even any reason for learning those things if all you gonna do is to use a CMS system anyway? - Also I cant find any situation where a CMS system can be replaced by your own web application.
My question is therefore: Is there any reason for learning Webforms/MVC when using a CMS?
EDIT:
My question might be more like: When should I use a CMS, and when should I go and build my own web app?
The problem with CMS solutions, and I mean all CMS solutions (not just Umbraco, or other .NET solutions, but in any language) is that you will always pay a price for using them. You may gain more from the time-savings afforded by using the CMS, but there are trade-offs to consider:
You will sacrifice a great deal of flexibility
You could pay a significant performance penalty. Many CMSs load a large amount of modules and code to service every request, and much of this is not relevant to a particular page function. (though some CMSs are more monstrously heavy than others!)
The future of your project is tied to yet another vendor, and their own choices
Very often, you rule out the possibility of using other databases that might have better fit your customer's needs (Umbraco doesn't support PostgreSQL, Kentico only supports SQL Server)
Once you start using a CMS you will be tied into satisfying the architectural decisions and API of the CMS framework, and you could eventually be backed into a corner.
This can be particularly problematic if your 'site' is more of a web application than a pure content delivery site. In such cases it can make more sense to choose to build using the full flexibility of the web application framework, rather than risk getting backed into an architectural corner.
On the other hand, if you are building a web site that has potentially hundreds of pages, with a lot of user-contributed content and is much less of a web application, then often a CMS is the way to go, and makes a lot of sense. But remember, you now have two frameworks and two APIs to learn and manage (your platform's framework and the CMS framework).
Writing a CMS is like invading Afghanistan.
Everybody gets a turn but nobody wins.
I don't think that Stack Overflow could have been built with a CMS. Does that answer your question? =)
Update
To answer your updated question.
If you want a regular corporation web containing news, articles, forum etc: Go ahead and use a CMS.
If you need to build a more custom web site like stackoverflow, a web interface for a system or anything like that: Built it using MVC etc.
I personally use a CMS for our corparate website and a MVC framework to build user and administration interfaces for our products.
Not every problem needs a CMS. In the same way not every problem needs a bespoke MVC/webforms website. It depends on what your requirements are. You pick the technology to solve the problem.
Build vs buy is the hardest decision to make. As a developer build always looks best. You can do better than that pile of carp they want to buy. Nevermind that you're reinventing the wheel, axel, cart, etc. To users/management buy always looks best. They don't have to think to hard about what they want and can have it now, not 3 months later after you write it. They forget it'll cost the same again to customise & make it impossible to upgrade.
I'll stop ranting now.
Umbraco is a pretty bare minimum CMS. To customize it (e.g. Version 7+) you'll need to know Heavy MVC, JSON, XML, Sql, etc.
In fact a Site built on Umbraco 7+ is entirely based on MVC views you set yourself and assign to SurfaceControllers (which are MVC controllers) and all you are really getting is the ability for users to edit things about your pages and have Umbraco manage it for you in a DB.
In short you still need experienced web developers to build a site on Umbraco, they just save a lot of time by not having to build the entire backend from scratch.
You use Umbraco to organize Document Types that define what Templates (MVC Views) are used for rendering different types of documetns (e.g. Web Pages) and then you built the template from the ground up with 100% control over the HTML, Css, and Javascript that get's output.
Imo Umbraco is more of a Framework like Django than a complete CMS.
Sure you can build a site in Umbraco and not customize anything, but it would be a pretty cheesey site.
The whole point to Umbraco is to give skilled .Net Developers a good platform for building a site on top of it, but they still have to build it.
Now sharepoint would be more of a complete CMS out of the box that you can do a lot with, but let's see a few problems with SharePoint...
Resource Heavy, eats 50+ Gig's to install
Eats 16 GB of ram just to boot it up (Sharepoint 2013)
Requires Sql Server 2008 R2 or equivalent (enterprise license, $$ chaching)
Requires Windows Server ($$chaching)
It's a monster basically, if all you need is a user editable blod platform... man what a waste of money. Foundation is free, but doesn't include things like the Blog Site Template, so you buy a server enterprise license ($$ big cachinge, 40,000$+ in some scenarios...)
Agreed. A CMS like Umbraco provides a (very) good out-of-the-box solution for the most basic applications. Any sort of specialized purpose is going to require additional programming knowledge. Anymore, though, and your major, if not primary need is going to be a good understanding of the business need. I think we're getting away from building the Legos themselves and on to building the neat toys with the Legos. Cheers!
A CMS (or similar application framework) will provide you with a lot of functionality out of the box, and many of them also have a good library of plug-ins. But you'll still need to write WebForms/MVC code if you want to add any custom features.
A friend of mine really likes using Joomla as a base for his websites. He also likes the power that Asp.Net has and can code in VB.Net.
He wants to use Joomla as the "Master Page" and Asp.Net/VB.Net/SQL Server to handle the main business logic of the application. He is planning on using the Joomla Wrapper Module (an IFrame, joomla modules) to integrate the ASP.Net into the Joomla website.
Joomla will be able to handle the security (users,roles,registration), menu (based on roles), static content (e.g. About Us page) and it will pass an Encrypted Username & Password to the Asp.Net web page (example here).
The goal of the website is to allow users to register & subscribe to a (free or paid) service where they will be able to customize content and download it as a file.
What disadvantages are there when doing this? Are there work arounds?
Some issues that I can think of are:
Links clicked in an IFrame won't change the browser's url which means that you can't bookmark pages and they aren't in the browsers history.
If Asp.Net has to know the users/roles (which is very likely) then it would have to access the Joomla database or keep its own user table which will have to be in sync with Joomla's users.
EDIT:
I would never build a new website this way, but I was looking for concrete points to convince my friend that using Joomla and Asp.Net together isn't a good idea.
I believe your friend's idea is fine. Both platforms have strong points. Joomla is a mature open source CMS platform that has an enormous amount of community contributed components and it is easy to use which makes it appealing. But I can also see instances where you may want to include ASP.Net functionality in certain scenarios. I have had clients who use Joomla but wanted an app I have written in .Net and it did not make sense to spend the time or money to rewrite it in PHP and MySql. The two can be integrated securely. I wish your friend luck in his endeavors.
I don't see what advantage you get from using Joomla when the app is ASP.net (nor the advantage of coding an ASP.net app when the framework uses PHP/MySQL).
I'm not convinced the security is tight because you can open iframes and bypass the Joomla security. Then you talk about passing username/password to the iframe - but now you need to validate this again through the ASP.net app.
I once coded an app in raw PHP and included it in a Joomla site using iframes. I realized fairly quickly that there was basically no security because the raw PHP had no knowledge of Joomla (although the app was not visible to site visitors and only known about by admin). I quickly recoded it into a built-in component.
To me, this sounds like you're reinventing the wheel on both sides of the app. If you want to use Joomla, either learn how to make components (it's pretty simple) and do it in PHP, or hire someone to do it for you ;).
If PHP is not your strong point, then use a full ASP.net site, perhaps with a CMS as GmonC suggested. Even creating your own basic CMS with some pre-built components (e.g. Telerik) would probably be quicker than integrating PHP and ASP.
Seriously, IMHO, if you're not going to integrate some legacy system or isn't doing this kind of "integration" development as an "experiment" to learn something - in a summarized way, if you just want to have your work done, I think the description you provided inserts a lot of complexity and overhead that aren't needed in the first place.
This added complexity of two completely different ecosystems is a disadvantage to what should be just simpler. I really believe you should try to use Joomla or other CMS written in .net like dotnetnuke (or build your own) instead of this configuration.
If you add more information about what are the goals and objectives of this project, my opinion may change. Until them, I keep my opinion of simplicity.
The time and effort you are going to go through to use Joomla is going to far outweight what it would take to just get some other CMS that was designed for .NET.
Stop over-engineering yourself into a midlife crisis.
Also, Joomla? Seriously? Joomla?
me too don't get any advantages for joomla, it's big system and it just as good as wordpress for regular projects, just wordpress is much simplier. joomla has no good documentation to learn and hard to extend.
I am not sure how to phrase a good question, so I will just say what I am after!
I have to retool a web application for our vendors and part of that requires restricting content on a vendor by vendor basis. Looking at ASP.NET (MVC) this seems easy enough using the built in Authorization Filters and the IPrincipal and IIdentity interfaces (I haven't used them yet, just reading, so I may be using these terms incorrectly!).
What I'm not interested in doing is writing all the code for managing users and roles. I would love to be able to assume all of this is done for me by a third party application, and my code simply specifies roles required.
Now, I'm not exactly sure the product I am after, or if it even exists. Is this a CMS? Right now our vendor site uses a very old version of DNN. Some of our existing custom code is written as a module within DNN. I am not interesting in this type of solution at all. I want to be able to build a standard ASP.NET webapp and not be tied to a certain vendor 'module' definition. It seems like this should be possible if the CMS / Portal implement custom providers behind the ASP.NET provided API's, yah?
The primary (only) customer here is developers, if that makes sense.
Notes:
I really don't need a full blown CMS, which is why I'm confused on what type of product to search for. Some CMS functionality might be nice, but the site is only for very specific vendor interaction that is going to be 95% custom.
I see that ASP.NET provies a website administration tool, and that is cool, but doesn't solve the public facing aspects of user interaction.
ASP.NET provides extensive membership and role management APIs that are pretty easy to work with since version 2.0. They are available in ASP.NET MVC. Probably they do not require much more work than you would do anyway for styling or other stuff. But since you don't want to do it anyway, you can use a simple Web form with a Login control in your MVC app and make routing ignore that path with:
routes.IgnoreRoute("SignIn.aspx");
Just drag a login control to SignIn.aspx as you would in any Web form app.