Copied to clipboard

Flag this post as spam?

This post will be reported to the moderators as potential spam to be looked at


  • Bruce 17 posts 82 karma points
    May 21, 2014 @ 09:25
    Bruce
    0

    Login page that's not CMSed ?

    Hi all,

    I'm building a v7 site at the moment and I'd quite like to have functional pages as external to Umbraco's document structure. For example, I'd like to make a login page that's actually just a surface controller that points to a view. This way I avoid the possibility of a user deleting the login page (and even if I protected the page from deletion, the page just doesn't need to be content managed so it's not really wise to have it as a document node).

    Anyway, this all works fine and dandy. However, as you might expect, I can't point protected pages to use my controller when it prompts me to point the page to a login page.

    Soo... firstly, is it possible to set all protected pages to automatically point to a specific login page without having to specify it in the CMS? If so, is it then possible to make the "Login page" option on "Public Access" non-mandatory?

    I'm not sure if I've explained this very well. Basically I'd like to have an external page as my login page and have it used when by "Public Access" in the CMS admin.

    Any ideas?

     

  • Jan Skovgaard 11280 posts 23678 karma points MVP 11x admin c-trib
    May 30, 2014 @ 10:08
    Jan Skovgaard
    0

    Hi Bruce

    Not sure what your scenario is?

    Sounds like you want to make sure that content editors in the backoffice don't delete certain pages? And that there is a member section of the website that members can log into from the frontend?

    If you're afraid editors of the Umbraco backoffice will delete the protected pages then you could restrict what they can see and edit in the user section so you can revoke their access to the branch in the content tree with the protected pages.

    Could this be a solution?

    /Jan

Please Sign in or register to post replies

Write your reply to:

Draft