Apologies for what is likely to be a basic question...
We're just in the process of creating a proof of concept in Umbraco for a new CMS site. As part of this we are going to have a lot of dynamic pages that will need to communicate both with databases we host, but also other systems via web service calls.
I was wondering about the best approach for this sort of thing. I'm thinking that each unique page will need to be a .net user control. So it's possible I might have one control for a search form, one for the results, one to then create something and post it to our servers etc. (I've had a look at Contour and although it's very good I don't think it really fits this particular purpose, although no doubt we will use it for some things.)
In Umbraco terms would I need to create a new template for every user control I need? This doesn't feel like a very attractive option as I would end up with hundreds of them, and I don't think I can organise templates into folders. (We actually have a legacy site we will want to port over so I already know that there will be a large number of screens.)
Alternatively I know it's possible to drop macros into the rich text editor but I don't really want content editors to be able to accidentally delete or change them! (Or indeed have any control over them at all other than maybe to be able to change the page heading and intro paragraph.
I like the idea of using user controls as it should give me a separation between Umbraco and our other services so we could easily drop them somewhere else if we wanted to (e.g. fi we decided to go down another CMS route for whatever reason.)
Alternatively I wondered if I could create my own ASPX page and use an Umbraco master page to provide the boundaries (but I think this idea falls down on the umbraco tags)
I'd be really grateful for any suggestions or if anyone has a decent link to help me get going. It seems there are a number of different ways to do this.
Apologies if this a really basic question!
Thanks,
John
PS - I'm using the latest Umbraco and .net versions
You should look a bit more into how makros work.They can encapsulate usercontrols and you can also choose them to not be included in the richtext editor.
Judging from you post I don't see any problems in choosing umbraco as your CMS. The Level 2 course would provide you with the hands on experience to cope with the problems you are describing
Forgot to mention what I'm expecting Umbraco to provide for me.
I want to share a common branding with the CMS part of the site. Also a user will log into the service part of the site and I will no doubt want to show the name of the user and that sort of thing in a shared header.
We will probably have some parts of the services that will want content editing functionality too.
That was an unbelievably quick reply! (So quick I hadn't seen it when I posted my last one) - thank you.
So if I use a macro I will need to create: one template, one macro, one user control for every dynamic page I have? Is there any way to have folders or some kind of grouping for templates? (Other than using master page inheritance). It feels a bit fiddly considering i will have a number of different services each encompassing a number of different pages - if they all get chucked into a big pot it will soon become unmanag Oeable. (I think)
I've done level 1 certification, but not level 2 - I wouldn't mind a trip to copenhagen to get it. :) Sadly our proof of concept is only for a couple of weeks so I wouldn't have time to get it for this particular project. One day wit hany luck.
Macros definitely sound like the way to go for your solution. Take a look at the Macro Container data-type - this allows you to use macros on a content page, (without the need to embed them in the rich-text editor). I have used this approach on a few Umbraco websites, it drastically reduced the number of templates I needed!
Thanks, Lee. It sounds like all the things I've been hearing about the Umbraco community are right - I can't believe how quick you lot are at replying. :)
I've got the macro container working and that definitely seems like a better way than having lots of templates. It still means having to deal with large uncategorised lists of things though. There's no way to create a folder structure for the macros is there?
No, there's no kind of folders/categorisation for Macros (or templates, etc). It's all down to how you name them. (e.g. grouping them with prefixes).
As for the functionality of the macros (.NET controls) ... how different would their functionality be? It might be possible to develop a .NET control that could load in another .NET control? That way you'd have 1 macro - that handles many .NET controls? Just a thought.
I must admit I was wondering about that sort of thing so I might investigate it as well and see if I can figure it out.
It's a shame there's no way to group macros - maybe something that will get added into a future version? But you're right I guess we can prefix things as long as we're careful. I'll keep messing around and see what happens.
Integrating other services into Umbraco
Hello,
Apologies for what is likely to be a basic question...
We're just in the process of creating a proof of concept in Umbraco for a new CMS site. As part of this we are going to have a lot of dynamic pages that will need to communicate both with databases we host, but also other systems via web service calls.
I was wondering about the best approach for this sort of thing. I'm thinking that each unique page will need to be a .net user control. So it's possible I might have one control for a search form, one for the results, one to then create something and post it to our servers etc. (I've had a look at Contour and although it's very good I don't think it really fits this particular purpose, although no doubt we will use it for some things.)
In Umbraco terms would I need to create a new template for every user control I need? This doesn't feel like a very attractive option as I would end up with hundreds of them, and I don't think I can organise templates into folders. (We actually have a legacy site we will want to port over so I already know that there will be a large number of screens.)
Alternatively I know it's possible to drop macros into the rich text editor but I don't really want content editors to be able to accidentally delete or change them! (Or indeed have any control over them at all other than maybe to be able to change the page heading and intro paragraph.
I like the idea of using user controls as it should give me a separation between Umbraco and our other services so we could easily drop them somewhere else if we wanted to (e.g. fi we decided to go down another CMS route for whatever reason.)
Alternatively I wondered if I could create my own ASPX page and use an Umbraco master page to provide the boundaries (but I think this idea falls down on the umbraco tags)
I'd be really grateful for any suggestions or if anyone has a decent link to help me get going. It seems there are a number of different ways to do this.
Apologies if this a really basic question!
Thanks,
John
PS - I'm using the latest Umbraco and .net versions
You should look a bit more into how makros work.They can encapsulate usercontrols and you can also choose them to not be included in the richtext editor.
Judging from you post I don't see any problems in choosing umbraco as your CMS. The Level 2 course would provide you with the hands on experience to cope with the problems you are describing
Forgot to mention what I'm expecting Umbraco to provide for me.
I want to share a common branding with the CMS part of the site. Also a user will log into the service part of the site and I will no doubt want to show the name of the user and that sort of thing in a shared header.
We will probably have some parts of the services that will want content editing functionality too.
That was an unbelievably quick reply! (So quick I hadn't seen it when I posted my last one) - thank you.
So if I use a macro I will need to create: one template, one macro, one user control for every dynamic page I have? Is there any way to have folders or some kind of grouping for templates? (Other than using master page inheritance). It feels a bit fiddly considering i will have a number of different services each encompassing a number of different pages - if they all get chucked into a big pot it will soon become unmanag Oeable. (I think)
I've done level 1 certification, but not level 2 - I wouldn't mind a trip to copenhagen to get it. :) Sadly our proof of concept is only for a couple of weeks so I wouldn't have time to get it for this particular project. One day wit hany luck.
Hi John,
Macros definitely sound like the way to go for your solution. Take a look at the Macro Container data-type - this allows you to use macros on a content page, (without the need to embed them in the rich-text editor). I have used this approach on a few Umbraco websites, it drastically reduced the number of templates I needed!
However one word of warning with the Macro Container - there seems to be a bug in Umbraco v4.5.2 - which will be fixed for next release, but just so you are aware.
Cheers, Lee.
Thanks, Lee. It sounds like all the things I've been hearing about the Umbraco community are right - I can't believe how quick you lot are at replying. :)
I've got the macro container working and that definitely seems like a better way than having lots of templates. It still means having to deal with large uncategorised lists of things though. There's no way to create a folder structure for the macros is there?
Hi John,
No, there's no kind of folders/categorisation for Macros (or templates, etc). It's all down to how you name them. (e.g. grouping them with prefixes).
As for the functionality of the macros (.NET controls) ... how different would their functionality be? It might be possible to develop a .NET control that could load in another .NET control? That way you'd have 1 macro - that handles many .NET controls? Just a thought.
Cheers, Lee.
I also normaly use a naming convension for my macros.
I must admit I was wondering about that sort of thing so I might investigate it as well and see if I can figure it out.
It's a shame there's no way to group macros - maybe something that will get added into a future version? But you're right I guess we can prefix things as long as we're careful. I'll keep messing around and see what happens.
Thanks very much - you've been really helpful.
is working on a reply...