I'm looking to set up some sort of a "base" install of Umbraco, that already has a lot of the things I use on almost all new sites (Base DocTypes, Common Packages, Common Macros for Navi/MetaTags/etc, some event handlers, maybe even a few content nodes like a Backoffice/Homepage, etc).
I am thinking the best way to do this, is to create a site, get it setup like I want, and then for new/subsequent sites, copy the database + files to the new site.
The other option I can think of is to package everything up, but then I think I have to worry about dependencies on other packages and the order they are installed, differing nodeid's, etc.
Anyone have any advice on the best way to do this? Or any general tips/best practices for something like this? :)
I would say that is in general not a bad idea, especially if you have to setup quite a few new web sites a year. The big plus is obviously that you have all your preferred packages, scripts etc. already in there. However it also comes with a range of negatives which need to be weighed against the one plus:
- You might not need all of the customization/add-ons/etc for a new web site, does that bother you or have actual negative effects? If it bothers you you might face the choice for each install: do I take my customized one or start from scratch? - As you will probably like to use the latest and nicest stuff out there for a new install (not to talk about necessary bug fixes e.g. for a package) you might find yourself updating/modifying your base install on a regular basis - so much that you might even have installed it from scratch each time - Depending on how formal your approach is you might end up with a lot of your own versions for your base install - keeping track of that and managing that might take more time than the actual benefit - Different systems require different configurations, e.g. the web.config looks a bit different for 3.5 than 4. Will your host system always be the same or do you need to even have multiple versions of your base install at the same time?
So I would probably put it this way: If you have to install a whole range of Umbraco installations each year (let's say 50+), the host system is always the same and you don't plan on upgrading any of the custom components for a while then yeah that sounds like a plan. However since the standard install with a couple of packages, couple of doc types etc. probably takes about 1 hour or maybe 2 it is probably not worth it.
All the best, Sascha
P.S.: Tried to create an automatic installer for Windows XP once that has all the 'standard' apps I usually use. Turned out that I spent more time on updating the installer than it would have taken me to do it all from scratch... so you might say I'm a burned child... nothing against the idea though!
I have base install and find it is very quick to get a new project up and running. Copy the files, run DB script for MySQL or restore backup for SQL Server and set IIS settings.
The advantage is you can use this base install for testing as well. E.g. I was able to test the upgrade process from 4.5 to 4.5.1 and then apply it to my 4.5 projects in development.
My suggestion is to keep it as minimal as possible. I.e. only have those items in it that you use in every project.
I've been taking the 'base package' approach. At the moment, for new client projects, I am using Web PI to set-up a new instance of Umbraco, then install my 'base package' (which contains, as you said, data-types, doc-types, macros, templates, other packages, etc) ... and that gives me a good stable start to the project.
The templates in the 'base package' are very basic - literally bare-bones HTML documents - as (for me) each client has different designs and needs. (That's where most of my dev-time is spent).
As for other packages, I keep them fairly limited - before v4.5, I used Macro Picker a LOT - but now in v4.5 there is Macro Container. :-) For your comment about different nodeIds, etc. I never rely on a nodeId specifically - I try to keep everything relative and structured. If I do find I need to refer to a specific nodeId, then the Umbraco instance has already gone beyond a 'base' install.
With all this said, I have been looking at taking the database approach... but I have concerns when a future client might need a different database (i.e. MySQL or SQL-CE4, etc).
Creating a "base install" of Umbraco?
Hi all,
I'm looking to set up some sort of a "base" install of Umbraco, that already has a lot of the things I use on almost all new sites (Base DocTypes, Common Packages, Common Macros for Navi/MetaTags/etc, some event handlers, maybe even a few content nodes like a Backoffice/Homepage, etc).
I am thinking the best way to do this, is to create a site, get it setup like I want, and then for new/subsequent sites, copy the database + files to the new site.
The other option I can think of is to package everything up, but then I think I have to worry about dependencies on other packages and the order they are installed, differing nodeid's, etc.
Anyone have any advice on the best way to do this? Or any general tips/best practices for something like this? :)
Thanks,
Tom
I made a Visual Studio solution including Umbraco. We copy/past it for new websites, works great! :-)
I've heard of that but am very confused as to how that works...
Are you starting from the binaries or the source?
Do you just run Umbraco from inside Visual Studio to install all your packages, setup doctypes, etc?
Then just copy the folder structure/db or the solution itself?
Hi Tom,
I would say that is in general not a bad idea, especially if you have to setup quite a few new web sites a year. The big plus is obviously that you have all your preferred packages, scripts etc. already in there. However it also comes with a range of negatives which need to be weighed against the one plus:
- You might not need all of the customization/add-ons/etc for a new web site, does that bother you or have actual negative effects? If it bothers you you might face the choice for each install: do I take my customized one or start from scratch?
- As you will probably like to use the latest and nicest stuff out there for a new install (not to talk about necessary bug fixes e.g. for a package) you might find yourself updating/modifying your base install on a regular basis - so much that you might even have installed it from scratch each time
- Depending on how formal your approach is you might end up with a lot of your own versions for your base install - keeping track of that and managing that might take more time than the actual benefit
- Different systems require different configurations, e.g. the web.config looks a bit different for 3.5 than 4. Will your host system always be the same or do you need to even have multiple versions of your base install at the same time?
So I would probably put it this way: If you have to install a whole range of Umbraco installations each year (let's say 50+), the host system is always the same and you don't plan on upgrading any of the custom components for a while then yeah that sounds like a plan. However since the standard install with a couple of packages, couple of doc types etc. probably takes about 1 hour or maybe 2 it is probably not worth it.
All the best,
Sascha
P.S.: Tried to create an automatic installer for Windows XP once that has all the 'standard' apps I usually use. Turned out that I spent more time on updating the installer than it would have taken me to do it all from scratch... so you might say I'm a burned child... nothing against the idea though!
Hi Tom,
I have base install and find it is very quick to get a new project up and running. Copy the files, run DB script for MySQL or restore backup for SQL Server and set IIS settings.
The advantage is you can use this base install for testing as well. E.g. I was able to test the upgrade process from 4.5 to 4.5.1 and then apply it to my 4.5 projects in development.
My suggestion is to keep it as minimal as possible. I.e. only have those items in it that you use in every project.
Cheers
Paul
I always start from scratch. Doesn't take very long for a new install.
Hi Tom,
I've been taking the 'base package' approach. At the moment, for new client projects, I am using Web PI to set-up a new instance of Umbraco, then install my 'base package' (which contains, as you said, data-types, doc-types, macros, templates, other packages, etc) ... and that gives me a good stable start to the project.
The templates in the 'base package' are very basic - literally bare-bones HTML documents - as (for me) each client has different designs and needs. (That's where most of my dev-time is spent).
As for other packages, I keep them fairly limited - before v4.5, I used Macro Picker a LOT - but now in v4.5 there is Macro Container. :-) For your comment about different nodeIds, etc. I never rely on a nodeId specifically - I try to keep everything relative and structured. If I do find I need to refer to a specific nodeId, then the Umbraco instance has already gone beyond a 'base' install.
With all this said, I have been looking at taking the database approach... but I have concerns when a future client might need a different database (i.e. MySQL or SQL-CE4, etc).
Cheers, Lee.
is working on a reply...