Hi Yash and welcome to the forum and to Umbraco :)
You should be able to still use Archetype. But since the project has been "Sunset" https://github.com/kgiszewski/Archetype no new versions will be released and the package is no longer maintained. So if you discover bugs or need to extend it you'll need to make your own custom build for instance.
But if you don't need any of that and you're happy with the package as it is you can keep using it. But there will probably come a time where the package will no longer be compatible with newer releases of Umbraco unless the project is relived for some reason of course. So it might be worth considering if switching to using Nested content is the better option after all.
Just out of curiosity - What is it about Nested Content that you're not keen on? Where do you think Archetype is better than Nested Content?
Thanks a lot for your reply. The reason why I'm not too keen on using Nested Content is because I don't understand why we should be creating a new document type for a new data type. There will end up being lots of document types which won't even be used for any content pages and might confuse developers/content editors.
Ah ok I see :) Well that's a matter of perspective I guess. I'm sure that there are more pro's and con's than I manage to mention in the following. It's been a while since I have been using Archetype myself and in regards of the technical details about how content is stored etc. I can't list all the details since that's usually dealt with by my backend colleagues. I'm a frontend developer and I'm only really concerned with the rendering the view - But that being said I'm also spending a lot of time structuring the Umbraco backoffice.
So here's my input - And like I said there are probably many different opinions about this :)
I like the fact that it's based on document types since it deals with content and it let's you as a developer manage your nested content items / blocks / partials in the document type section where you handle other content modelling too. With Archetype you need to deal with it on the datatype itself. But of course you can create the datatype and manage the data within the document type section but that might be a bit tough since there's not a lot of space to work with :)
To me it just makes sense to deal with this in one place. Plus it makes it really easy to reuse nested content items.
If you for instance need to allow your editors to create image, text and video that they should be able to sort etc. on one page but on another page they should only be allowed to insert text and image then it's easy to setup a datatype for each scenario where you map the already created document types for each of the content pieces. With archetype you would need to recreate those types of content for each scenario instead of reusing if I'm not mistaken.
Being able to setup nested content items where you can add icons to make it easier for the editors to remember, relate and use the backoffice is also a win for me. I don't think this is possible with archetype either.
I also think that the nested content UI aligns better with the overall Umbraco UI than Archetype does in my humble opinion :)
This is just some of the benefits that I can think of - The more techincal details about models, mapping etc. etc. I won't get into since I can't explain those details properly. But other bright minds in here can.
But this is just how I think about it - Your way of working and developing might be better suited for Archetypes way of dealing with things. As long as the editors who need to manage the content are happy then that's the most important thing.
But as I mentioned do keep in mind that Archetype has been sunset and at some point in the future it might not work with Umbraco anymore.
I'm a colleague of Yash's and it's my architecture he's implementing on the site he's currently building.
The main difference seems to be that Archetype handles property configuration as bespoke datatypes and that Nested Content handles it as mini doctypes.
If you think of repeated content structures as a simple kind of custom property editor, then it totally makes sense to configure things as datatypes using Archetype. If you think of repeated content structures as small documents within a page, then it totally makes sense to configure them as doctypes using Nested Content.
I don'think there's any significant benefit in using Nested Content over Archetype; it feels like they're essentially doing the same thing in a different place. I prefer the familiarity of Archetype — both within our tech team and among the content editors who'll be managing the site Yash is building, so I recommended that he continue to use Archetype despite it being deprecated.
Should it become obsolete and no longer function, we'll have to look at whether it makes sense to fork Archetype and fix it or to rearchitect the site to use Nested Content, but that feels unlikely to be a pressing problem in the very near future, at least 😊
Indeed all valid points - I just pointed out the current state of archetype to make sure you did not keep using it expecting it to be maintained etc. :) - But yes forking is of course an option - No doubt :)
Bottom line - As long as the user has a nice experience no one cares whether it's the one or the other approach that's being used.
Archetype in latest Umbraco Versions
Hi,
I am using Archetypes in the latest Umbraco Version (7.12), as I'm not too keen on using Nested Content.
Is this ok? I am new to developing Umbraco websites so need some advice on this.
Thanks,
Yash
Hi Yash and welcome to the forum and to Umbraco :)
You should be able to still use Archetype. But since the project has been "Sunset" https://github.com/kgiszewski/Archetype no new versions will be released and the package is no longer maintained. So if you discover bugs or need to extend it you'll need to make your own custom build for instance.
But if you don't need any of that and you're happy with the package as it is you can keep using it. But there will probably come a time where the package will no longer be compatible with newer releases of Umbraco unless the project is relived for some reason of course. So it might be worth considering if switching to using Nested content is the better option after all.
Just out of curiosity - What is it about Nested Content that you're not keen on? Where do you think Archetype is better than Nested Content?
You could maybe also consider using "Embedded Content Blocks", which resembles Nested content in many ways but has a different UI and some other options and features built in - https://our.umbraco.com/packages/backoffice-extensions/embedded-content-blocks/
/Jan
Hey Jan,
Thanks a lot for your reply. The reason why I'm not too keen on using Nested Content is because I don't understand why we should be creating a new document type for a new data type. There will end up being lots of document types which won't even be used for any content pages and might confuse developers/content editors.
What are your thoughts on this?
Yash.
Hi Yash
Ah ok I see :) Well that's a matter of perspective I guess. I'm sure that there are more pro's and con's than I manage to mention in the following. It's been a while since I have been using Archetype myself and in regards of the technical details about how content is stored etc. I can't list all the details since that's usually dealt with by my backend colleagues. I'm a frontend developer and I'm only really concerned with the rendering the view - But that being said I'm also spending a lot of time structuring the Umbraco backoffice.
So here's my input - And like I said there are probably many different opinions about this :)
I like the fact that it's based on document types since it deals with content and it let's you as a developer manage your nested content items / blocks / partials in the document type section where you handle other content modelling too. With Archetype you need to deal with it on the datatype itself. But of course you can create the datatype and manage the data within the document type section but that might be a bit tough since there's not a lot of space to work with :)
To me it just makes sense to deal with this in one place. Plus it makes it really easy to reuse nested content items.
If you for instance need to allow your editors to create image, text and video that they should be able to sort etc. on one page but on another page they should only be allowed to insert text and image then it's easy to setup a datatype for each scenario where you map the already created document types for each of the content pieces. With archetype you would need to recreate those types of content for each scenario instead of reusing if I'm not mistaken.
Being able to setup nested content items where you can add icons to make it easier for the editors to remember, relate and use the backoffice is also a win for me. I don't think this is possible with archetype either.
I also think that the nested content UI aligns better with the overall Umbraco UI than Archetype does in my humble opinion :)
This is just some of the benefits that I can think of - The more techincal details about models, mapping etc. etc. I won't get into since I can't explain those details properly. But other bright minds in here can.
But this is just how I think about it - Your way of working and developing might be better suited for Archetypes way of dealing with things. As long as the editors who need to manage the content are happy then that's the most important thing.
But as I mentioned do keep in mind that Archetype has been sunset and at some point in the future it might not work with Umbraco anymore.
I hope all of the above makes sense?
/Jan
Hey Jan,
I'm a colleague of Yash's and it's my architecture he's implementing on the site he's currently building.
The main difference seems to be that Archetype handles property configuration as bespoke datatypes and that Nested Content handles it as mini doctypes.
If you think of repeated content structures as a simple kind of custom property editor, then it totally makes sense to configure things as datatypes using Archetype. If you think of repeated content structures as small documents within a page, then it totally makes sense to configure them as doctypes using Nested Content.
I don'think there's any significant benefit in using Nested Content over Archetype; it feels like they're essentially doing the same thing in a different place. I prefer the familiarity of Archetype — both within our tech team and among the content editors who'll be managing the site Yash is building, so I recommended that he continue to use Archetype despite it being deprecated.
Should it become obsolete and no longer function, we'll have to look at whether it makes sense to fork Archetype and fix it or to rearchitect the site to use Nested Content, but that feels unlikely to be a pressing problem in the very near future, at least 😊
Thanks!
Owen
Hi Owen
Indeed all valid points - I just pointed out the current state of archetype to make sure you did not keep using it expecting it to be maintained etc. :) - But yes forking is of course an option - No doubt :)
Bottom line - As long as the user has a nice experience no one cares whether it's the one or the other approach that's being used.
Happy developing! :)
/Jan
is working on a reply...