You can still upload files to your FTP if you really want to have a path that you "know". But.. Who remembers these things?

In the richtext editor, you can insert images and find them (and upload them) in your media manager, which you can divide in folders and everything.

On your document type you can put a seperate media picker with the alias of .. whatever: yourProperty

Then in XSLT you can do:

<xsl:value-of select="umbraco.library:GetMedia(./data [@alias = 'yourProperty'], 'false')"/>

Hope this helps.

We use url() in CSS files for all background images and some foreground images.  If there isn't a known and reliable way to obtain the URL for a media item, then we can't use Umbraco.  At the very least, I would expect there to be link to the media item just like content has links.

Well, how often do you change your background images? I just make a folder "layout" in /images and upload my layout images (that nobody should need to touch anyway) through FTP to that folder.

In any case, if you REALLY need to be able to upload images to the media library, you can still upload them there, after that right-click the thumbnail and copy the image location.

Thanks, but we'd dropped Umbraco.  The reason for using a CMS is to make things easier for content editors, and to not require a rollout to add new content.  I was giving just one example, but several images will be uploaded daily.  Your solution (FTP upload) qualifies as a rollout, so there is no reason to use Umbraco.

Take it easy...

Hi Bill,

Are you using umbraco  as a cms? It appear to me you don't. Content editors are supposed to edit content, not layout. It doesn't matter where the image is stored, nor does it matter where content is stored, you just have to manage it! 

"I was giving just one example, but several images will be uploaded daily" (Quote Bill)

TinyMCE has many plugins so it should be possible to include a media/file manager to select images from. It's just not included by default, and no one (unless maybe for a few) have really bothered with that!

"Asking me to FIND the folder that Umbraco happened to store the image in (i.e. /media/92/background.gif) is completely absurd"

I have to disagree on this. Content editors do not care how media (and content) are stored, they just want to USE it!

And remember, umbraco does allow to change the way media items are stored, but it might be some work to do it (You'll have to roll your own tree building methods, create datatype to store media items as you'd like, etc...).

Cheers,

/Dirk

Hi Bill, and you are also allowed to plug in you own editor if you want.

For Example: in our company we are using the Cute Editor from CuteSoft. It has build in an own media libray based on an own folder structure you and your editors can define.

Cheers,
Thomas

Bill: I'm sorry to hear that you've stopped using umbraco. It sounds to me like you're missing some of the fundamental concepts. You as the designer/developer is free to put site graphics in whatever directory you want.. that be /images /sitegfx whatever.

Like Dirk says the user should not care about the path of an image at all, they should just have easy access to the media files and that's what umbraco's media section provides. If you need a more simple filestructure set UploadAllowDirectories to false in the config/umbracoSettings.config. Furthermore, if you need to upload multiple images at once, use Nörds Multiple File Uploader + quickfix ..

Hey Guys,

You all seem to be stating the point, but are completely missing it.  As Simon last said, "...they should just have easy access to the media files..", but there are not any built in tools to make it easy.  A content editor should be able to upload an object and immediately be able to use it.   A blogger should be able to upload files and images and add links for their download/view in a post.  This currently is not built into Umbraco, but it does exist in our current system.  We were hoping to come up with a solution for deploying new pages and layouts w/o requiring a roll out, but it also needs to take over all existing functionality.

If Graffiti CMS supported the master page concept, we'd be using it as it has everything that we need except for master pages.  It is also much easier to use.  DNN does everything as well, but its management is a nightmare and the client refuses to use it.  We have found some commercial packages that meet all of our needs, but the lowest one sells for $50,000 and most of them are overbloated.  So, we've decided to hold off for another year or two and continue with our current system.

Take it easy,
Bill

I probably used umbraco for too long, but would you mind explaining what currently is NOT easy in the media-section?

I find it rather easy to upload a file there (like Simon said therwe are tools available if you must upload multiple files at once).

If a user wants to create a post, they most likely allready know what to write and which files belong there right? So, they go to the media-section, upload the files. Then go to the content-section and start creating the post (and use the link-button or image-button the get the files from the media-section). 

What am I missing here? I don't know your specific situation, but so far this always has worked for me and my clients.

Hi Peter,

I do not see any "...link-button or image-button..." to "...get the files from the media-section..." in the template editor.  They exisit in the rich-text editor of content, but they do not exist in the template editor or the stylesheet editor.  The people above have said the same thing, there is no built in tool to do this.  I can't see why some of the tools of the Rich Text Editor weren't just added to these other 2 editors, but they weren't.

This is my 5th post to this thread and you are the first to even talk about these buttons.  I'm glad that you know more about this than the others, but it does not instill confidence with the product.  I searched all of the forums and not once does anyone even talk about those buttons, they just say that you must use XSLT, use some 3rd party product, or some other crap.  Sorry, but I'm not at all happy with the support that I have received thus far.

Take it easy,
Bill

Hi Bill,

Hope you're doing well with your product, it seems much more mature than umbraco in your opinion.

Anyways, template editor doesn't need those buttons imho, as those are used by developers who know what templates are all about, those are NOT intented to be used by end-users or editors (unless for a few smart people who know what they're doing). I'm thinking you don't want to get the difference, or don't get how umbraco is supposed to be used, both by end users and developers!

Criticism seems like a good thing, especially for an open source product as umbraco, and we appreciated feedback. Constructive comments are even more appreciated, even from someone who hasn't been using umbraco for a long time. Your comments... well, guess you get my point.

Cheers,

/Dirk

Well, this is the first time I've heard of anyone requesting an "insert image" button in the template/css editors. Maybe it would be a good idea, but I can't say that I agree with your conclusion that it is a "must have". If you upoad and image as a "File" in the media section, you will see that it writes a small url to the file that is ready for copy-pasting. And since you can have several sections of umbraco open at the same time in different tabs, it's a peice of cake IMHO.

I would not expect this sort of buttons to show up in template editors, because that is not where I want my content editors to be. They should not have to work with templates.

With regards do your "support" complaint, may I just remind you that everyone here is donating time for free, to help all the users we can on this forum. Being polite will get you a lot of helpful replies on this forum. Would be worth taking into acount before spitting out an angry post insulting some of the most dedicated people in the community.

Have a nice day,
Morten Bock

Honestly Bill, I don't want to be rude, but I think you're a little confused about the whole concept of frontend development.

Making master pages, creating CSS and Javascript is a discipline, people have full time jobs doing this stuff. They also deserve (in my humble opinion) a development version, where they can go wild and use images that they copy to a folder. When they are done with a template, it can be deployed.

If this sounds like software development: that's because it is. Please give me any other CMS that can do what you so desperately seem to want and then we can discuss this further.

Bill,

sorry to hear that you are not pleased with the support. Please remeber that this is a forum and "volunteer" community. Any "support" that you recieve here is a result of developers and users of Umbraco spending their spare time answering questions and sharing their skills/experience with the system.

As for the issues that you are stating, here are my two cents:

The "editor" that is provided for stylesheet and template management is there for conveneince once your system is in production. Any assets that the site requires to run (images, stylesheets, templates, etc.) should, in my mind, be under source control (such as SVN, CVS, or SourceSafe). To do that you would either work on and manage these assets in a VS project or in your favorite editor. Site assets are not content, and as Dirk said, a CMS is a "Content Management System" where users are able to publish text, images, videos, and any other media that you as the developer provide tools for. Since the items you are talking about (background images and the like) are not content there is no reason why a user should be able to select or see these as part of a media library. There are some great demos and examples of how you might work with your Umbraco installation in the videos and books sections. Going through this material will most likely shed some light on the issue for you.  Sometimes, like in this case, it's a matter of tweaking your thinking/process just a bit to get things rolling. I know there were some of these hurdles for me as well when I switched from other platforms to Umbraco (which I now use exclusively not only as a CMS but also as a development framework).

Like you mentioned, licensed products that provide the same functionality will cost your organization a pretty penny. I think once you get passed this (seemingly) small issue you will find that Umbraco can satisfy all the requirements and more. I hope you don't give up.

Cheers,
Nik

Hi Bill,

You seem like you are looking for a reason not to use Umbraco, but just to offer my, very humble, opinion:

"A content editor should be able to upload an object and immediately be able to use it." - A Content Editor should do just that, edit content. If the content includes images then you don't need them to modify the stylesheet/template, they can insert images within the RTE.

Umbraco could easily save you a large part of that $50000 with a small investment in professional services. It may not offer exactly what you want 'out the box' but what it offers is the flexibility to modify it to do exactly what you do want.

Jay

content editors actually do have access to images upload with the insert image dialog within tiny mce... they can upload new items or select from media via the dialog...

now, if you are referencing markup editors, individuals that create templates, then you STILL have immediate access... when you upload an item to media - most users here don't do it this way, but i do... i have a folder in media [via umbraco] called cssAssets... i create images [mediaType of] and then upload an image... as soon as the image is uploaded, you see a relative path... /media/1234/yourImage.jpg or whatever... i then copy this and past it into my css for reference....

could it be eaiser -- i guess, but not much easier --

sorry to see you leaving umbraco for such a [in my opinion] minor issue that is easily addressed... Keep asking questions and let's see if we can bring you back into the fold!

If you want support you could try going for the pro license instead, which includes support. Otherwise you will just have to rely on the free help you get from these friendly, polite and dedicated people you find in this forum.

But for them to help you properly you should maybe think about how you express the problems you see. In your very first post you where negative towards Umbraco and I am really not suprised that you have chosen another system. (Which I think is fair). But it seems to me that you just had to test it even though you knew all the time that you would end up using something else.

There is no need to insult the core team or the people in this forum that are actually trying to help answering your questions. Of course I am sorry to hear that Umbraco apparently does not need your demands and suggestions and critisism is good. But it should be done with respect to be taken seriousley. How can you expect people will still want to help you out when your tone is getting more harsh in every new post you write? That does not encourage anything but irritation and rage.

I am not expert but if you guys are so skilled I just don't get why you don't modify the core? Ok, maybe it would end up taking far too long time and then it is better to pay for some other system. It's all fair. But if you really wanted to you could have modified it to meet your demands I guess.

Cheers

Jan

@Dirk: I understand your thoughts, but I made it very clear in my initial post as to what I was looking for, and yes this is a feature that is available in every other product that I have seen.  The object is to make it easy, not harder, for anyone to access information, which includes users.  I have tried to be constructive, but I very clearly stated what I was looking for in my first post.  It wasn't until after my fourth post that some one actually posted some useful information, and after my 5th post where Morton posted something that I can work with.

This is a must have piece of functionality.  Asking anyone to leave the document that they are currently working on, just to find a reference, is not good work flow, especially when it is so slow moving from page to page (editors will be all over the world).  A pop-up media selector that returns a site relative URL, or a URL relative to the file being edited, is definitely needed.  Content editors may also be web designers who layout the entire site.

@Morton: I never tried uploading a file until now, and it does give you the link.  Images; however, do not.  I guess I could right click on it to get it's properties and remove the "_thumb" from the filename, but that is not user friendly nor intuitive.  Plus, you are asking the user to exit the current stylesheet or template that he/she is editing, go to the media manager to find the object that they are looking for, go back to the editor, find the place where they were working, and insert the code.  I certainly hope that that does not sound normal to you.

Thanks,
Bill

.. Once again, they should not be in the backoffice editor doing this stuff anyway, please give your frontend developers a copy of a full-featured editor. For their sakes.

Bill,

once again, i am confused with your refrence to editors? are they working in content or in settings? Editors in my opinion would only be in Content -- designers/markup specialists would be in Settings and Media creating templates,etc.

as far as designer workflow goes...

1. create layout in image editing application... ie - photoshop

2. create necissary design assets and upload via ftp [into /data/cssAssets or into media as individual assets]

3. create markup and insert propper pathing to images as necessary [using your known paths in /data/cssAssets or cataloging your media urls for use in your css...

i think our main issues with this thread may be word related...

granted WYSIWYG template creation might be a nice feature... but i think most TRUE markup specialist eventually go back to notepad anyway to do the css/xhtml code anyway ;) i rarely even launch dreamweaver any more.

keep em comin!

FYI, I know what a true CMS is, and I'm sorry to say that some of you have it wrong.  A true CMS allows you to edit any and all content, including layout.  If you need a full expanation of what a true CMS is, here is a link to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_management_system.

Bill, you can have several sections open at a time. In your browser go to:

http://example.com/umbraco/umbraco.aspx

to log in. When you are logged in, start two new tabs in your browser, and open the urls:

http://example.com/umbraco/umbraco.aspx#settings
and
http://example.com/umbraco/umbraco.aspx#media

Now you can easily work with your stylesheet/template in one tab, while browsing the media section in another. I find that this give at great boost in productivity.

Right, sounds like if you planned your deployment with supporting style guids etc, your users would be able to use the available templtes and assets that you provide during deployment or as upgrades to their installation. I can see how users might want to be able to use various look n' feels, but it is up to you as the developer to provide them with that functionality. I can only assume that you are not providing a completely "free form" CMS to your end users where there is no control over what the various pages look like?

Cheers.

@Nik... WONDERFUL point!

it sounds like they can have one of those circa 1989 sites with big, bigger, biggest and biggerest type in various colors, patterned backgrounds and a rotating @ symbol for the mail:to link...

damn, i miss those sites!

actually, i believe that cms is called...

http://www.innovastudio.com/webcms.asp

@Bob, yeah those were the good ol' days right? LOL

<blink></blink> :)

@Sebastiaan: I have no idea what you are talking about.  Designers use whatever tool that they wish to use to create content (everything is content, including stylesheets and templates) and then they past it into the stylesheet or template editor, where they make tweeks.  Its when they make tweeks that thye need these tools, and the media manager needs to provide valid links for images.

@Bob: An editor is any editiable box that has editting buttons associated with it.  Content/Settings, makes no difference, they both use editors.

@Everyone: I think I see one disconnect.  Everyone here seems to think that it is ok to edit/upload/whatever files directly on the server, when it is not.  Making any physical change to the server, other than through the application itself, is a CMMI violation and violates SOX as well.  While this one site does not need to be SOX compliant, it does need to be CMMI compliant.  However, the financial and ecommerce sites must be SOX compliant as well.  In both cases, no one but an IT technician is allowed access to the servers, which requires development to create a rollout package for the technician to install.  This is why CMS applications were created.

So Bill... here is my question... in an environment which has some pretty hefty requirements -- which in my experience would equal some pretty hefty pricetags... are you interested in the PRO version of umbraco?

also, it sounds like with some minimal customization to the template editor you could be right where you need to be.

finally, i think i was correct in my assumption regarding the definitions of terms... i was assuming you were referring to persons when you used the term editor... not the physical field on the dataType, docType or template.

thanks for the healthy dialog.

Ok, a few points directly from wikipedia then:

A 'web content management' (WCM) system is a CMS designed to simplify the publication of Web content to Web sites, in particular allowing content creators to submit content without requiring technical knowledge of HTML or the uploading of files .

Check! That's what the content and media sections are for!

Automated templates
Create standard output templates (usually HTML and XML) that can be automatically applied to new and existing content, allowing the appearance of all content to be changed from one central place.

Check! That's in the Settings-section, the developer fills that. NOT the content-editor.

Easily editable content
Once content is separated from the visual presentation of a site, it usually becomes much easier and quicker to edit and manipulate. Most WCMS software includes WYSIWYG editing tools allowing non-technical individuals to create and edit content.

Check! That's what the content and media sections are for!

Scalable feature sets
Most WCMS software includes plug-ins or modules that can be easily installed to extend an existing site's functionality.

Check! A lot of packages are ready to be installed in umbraco!

Web standards upgrades
Active WCMS software usually receives regular updates that include new feature sets and keep the system up to current web standards.

Check! You have FULL control over the html that gets spit out!

Workflow management
Workflow is the process of creating cycles of sequential and parallel tasks that must be accomplished in the CMS. For example, a content creator can submit a story, but it is not published until the copy editor cleans it up and the editor-in-chief approves it.

@Bill, that is my point, you should not be editing the structure/framework of your site outside of some sort of source control system. This requires you to be smart about and plan your work like deployments and major architectural changes to your application. These are not tasks that should be performed within a Web interface.

To @Bob's point, there is a fundamental reason why Content and Settings live in separate spaces within the CMS. They are intended for vastly different audiences. Content for editors/contributors and Settings for developers and admins.

So Bill... here is my question... in an environment which has some pretty hefty requirements -- which in my experience would equal some pretty hefty pricetags... are you interested in the PRO version of umbraco?

also, it sounds like with some minimal customization to the template editor you could be right where you need to be.

finally, i think i was correct in my assumption regarding the definitions of terms... i was assuming you were referring to persons when you used the term editor... not the physical field on the dataType, docType or template.

thanks for the healthy dialog.

doh! sorry for the double post ;)

Hi Bill,
I think I finally get the point you are trying to make here.... But as see it, there are good reasons not to have buttons to the media section on these 2 editors:

1) People responsible for editing copy and images are supposed to stick to the 'content' section and 'media' section and nothing else. This is why you are able to create specific user types and restrict them to only these sections. For example, I wouldn't want a journalist trying to confuse themselves with css stylesheets or .aspx master templates.

2) When you are building templates you are generally setting up the site to read in dynamic content which changes per section or per page. Stuff that doesn't need to change like site logo, background images etc doesn't need to hang out in the media section... and therefore no need for a button. It might be nice for developers to have this functionality so that you don't need to track down your media id. But you seemed to be making a point about bloggers and content editors (see point 1)

3) I don't know any front-end developer in their right mind that would use the umbraco css editor to code their css. It's for quick changes at best. (or for setting up styles that can be re-used in a richtext field) It would be much more sensible to code your css in a nice css editor of your choice that actually has syntax highlighting... which you can then copy across to your umbraco site on your server once you're done.

4) that's it I hope!

- Tim

SOX and CMMI  compliance is completely acceptable and the media manager allows the user to upload through the application.

If you need the ability to upload multiple files through the application it is fairly easy to add this functionality, but only if you have the incentive to invest some effort and time in leaning how it works.

It would be extremely useful, to help further the development of Umbraco, if you could offer some suggestions/detail as to what functionality is required to hit SOX an CMMI compliance..

cheers

Jay

Hey guys, this is my last post as I need to get to doing some work.  You have it wrong with the settings only being accessible by developers.  Web designers provide the initial layout to developers, where the developers get the site to function, but then it is handed back to the designers who have ASP.NET knowledge to make future layout changes.  Take a look at MOSS 2007 sometime and you'll see what a true CMS can do.

Take it easy...

have you ever looked at the html that MOSS 2007 outputs?

yes, Web designers are developers too! so of course they could have access to the settings and devloper sections. I was talking about your average dumb-arse content editor (sorry Mum).
So if Umbraco had a file uploader/manager seperate to the content/media section, just for developers to get their job done (with file-manager buttons on all developer-related editors) because they're not allowed to sFTP to a server would you be happy?

well, there you have it... case closed... sharepoint is where he needs to be... we can't be everything to everyone...

good luck with the skinning :)

If you want full control in that way, just build the required 'modules' as documentTypes, create a custom section and voila you've got a fully bespoke back-office tool, where yes you could upload image files for use in the CSS, and whatever.

The key is all this data is stored in the XML, so you can do whatever you want with it. 

Our personal view is users are never given CSS editing, etc, etc, because thats verging on insanity. 

-

(Its just a question of what is static and what is dynamic, CSS can be generated and cached via XSLT.)

Treat Umbraco as a framework you can build whatever you want. You just need to sit down and have a thought process.  

To add a further comment.

The media section in Umbraco is very weak (e.g except users to use two sections), and we always treat media as a sub content to a Document. Keeps it all in the tree and really easy to deal with.

Would be nice if we could use this apporach and the media was also reference in a media tree. (something I'm developing at the moment).

Ttfn.

Bill,

Going back to your orignal question if you create a simple macro you can add images to templates without evening having to think where the file is on the server.  Just add a paramter of mediaCurrent and it will pop-up with the media tree and you select your file.  A few lines of XSLT inside the macro and the image is available.   This can be used inline CSS if required for background images as well.

I'll send you the code if you need it.

Umbraco is a framework 'nothing is impossible'.

DC

P.S. Personally I think MOSS 2007 is the worst piece of software I've come across in 15 years.  The quality of the code from the 'skinned' templates is shocking.

@dillorscroft: Thanks for the post, but that does not answer, "...the editor should provide a media browser that inserts the exact location or a server control to access the image.  Asking me to FIND the folder that Umbraco happened to store the image in (i.e. /media/92/background.gif) is completely absurd."  Some one else already posted the information I needed to get the URL w/o being forced to look in the database, or on the file system, to find the image. Files display the URL after you upload the file, but images do not, which is what prompted the post.  The work around is to right click on the thumbnail, copy the properties, and remove "_thumb" from the filename.

As for MOSS 2007, it is severely bloated, but it works.  It has every feature that a CMS should have, including versioning of master pages, css, images, and any other content that you can think of.  It's ok for Intranet applications, but the Internet software license will put you out $250K + maintenance costs.  With MOSS 2007, you get what you put into it.  If you create documents in Word, expect $#!+.  If you use the proper tools, you can expect excellent results, but the development time of WebParts will kill you.

I think that it is rather hilarious that a single reference to MOSS 2007 makes anyone think that I'd use it for this application.

Create a new DocType.

Add a couple of tabs.

Add file upload.

(heck add the autocropper)

-

E.g.

News Articles

- News Article 1

- Comments

- Comment 1

- Comment 2

- Media

- Image 1

- Video 1

-

You can get to the URL(s) just a couple of lines of XSLT -> 

#60;&#120;&#115;&#108;&#58;&#118;&#97;&#114;&#105;&#97;&#98;&#108;&#101;&#32;&#110;&#97;&#109;&#101;&#61;&#34;&#85;&#112;&#108;&#111;&#97;&#100;&#34;&#32;&#115;&#101;&#108;&#101;&#99;&#116;&#61;&#34;&#36;&#99;&#117;&#114;&#114;&#101;&#110;&#116;&#80;&#97;&#103;&#101;&#47;&#100;&#97;&#116;&#97;&#32;&#91;&#64;&#97;&#108;&#105;&#97;&#115;&#32;&#61;&#32;&#39;&#85;&#112;&#108;&#111;&#97;&#100;&#39;&#93;&#34;&#32;&#47;&#62;&#13;&#10;&#13;&#10;&#60;&#120;&#115;&#108;&#58;&#118;&#97;&#114;&#105;&#97;&#98;&#108;&#101;&#32;&#110;&#97;&#109;&#101;&#61;&#34;&#85;&#112;&#108;&#111;&#97;&#100;&#83;&#112;&#108;&#105;&#116;&#34;&#32;&#115;&#101;&#108;&#101;&#99;&#116;&#61;&#34;&#117;&#109;&#98;&#114;&#97;&#99;&#111;&#46;&#108;&#105;&#98;&#114;&#97;&#114;&#121;&#58;&#83;&#112;&#108;&#105;&#116;&#40;&#36;&#85;&#112;&#108;&#111;&#97;&#100;&#44;&#32;&#39;&#44;&#39;&#41;&#34;&#32;&#47;&#62;&#13;&#10;&#13;&#10;&#60;&#120;&#115;&#108;&#58;&#102;&#111;&#114;&#45;&#101;&#97;&#99;&#104;&#32;&#115;&#101;&#108;&#101;&#99;&#116;&#61;&#34;&#36;&#85;&#112;&#108;&#111;&#97;&#100;&#83;&#112;&#108;&#105;&#116;&#47;&#118;&#97;&#108;&#117;&#101;&#34;&#62;&#13;&#10;&#60;&#120;&#115;&#108;&#58;&#105;&#102;&#32;&#116;&#101;&#115;&#116;&#61;&#34;&#36;&#85;&#112;&#108;&#111;&#97;&#100;&#83;&#112;&#108;&#105;&#116;&#32;&#38;&#103;&#116;&#59;&#32;&#49;&#34;&#62;&#13;&#10;&#32;&#32;&#60;&#105;&#109;&#103;&#62;&#13;&#10;&#32;&#32;&#60;&#120;&#115;&#108;&#58;&#97;&#116;&#116;&#114;&#105;&#98;&#117;&#116;&#101;&#32;&#110;&#97;&#109;&#101;&#61;&#34;&#115;&#114;&#99;&#34;&#62;&#13;&#10;&#32;&#32;&#32;&#32;&#60;&#120;&#115;&#108;&#58;&#118;&#97;&#108;&#117;&#101;&#45;&#111;&#102;&#32;&#115;&#101;&#108;&#101;&#99;&#116;&#61;&#34;&#117;&#109;&#98;&#114;&#97;&#99;&#111;&#46;&#108;&#105;&#98;&#114;&#97;&#114;&#121;&#58;&#71;&#101;&#116;&#77;&#101;&#100;&#105;&#97;&#40;&#46;&#44;&#32;&#39;&#102;&#97;&#108;&#115;&#101;&#39;&#41;&#47;&#100;&#97;&#116;&#97;&#32;&#91;&#64;&#97;&#108;&#105;&#97;&#115;&#32;&#61;&#32;&#39;&#117;&#109;&#98;&#114;&#97;&#99;&#111;&#70;&#105;&#108;&#101;&#39;&#93;&#34;&#47;&#62;&#13;&#10;&#32;&#32;&#60;&#47;&#120;&#115;&#108;&#58;&#97;&#116;&#116;&#114;&#105;&#98;&#117;&#116;&#101;&#62;&#13;&#10;&#60;&#47;&#105;&#109;&#103;&#62;&#13;&#10;&#60;&#47;&#120;&#115;&#108;&#58;&#105;&#102;&#62;&#13;&#10;&#60;&#47;&#120;&#115;&#108;&#58;&#102;&#111;&#114;&#45;&#101;&#97;&#99;&#104;&#62;

(erm how does one edit a post!) (plus we need some sort of width fixing ;) ) 

Hi Bill,

I feel that this topic has went a little awry.  You have some interesting suggestions, which could be useful to some.  Feel free to post an feature request to codeplex, and perhaps your feature will be added into umbraco in the future.

Umbraco has a philosophy that the content editor's role is made as simple as possible, but also limiting them so that they do not break the layout or site.  This works well for most people.  While I too sometimes find it a nuisance to get media paths for CSS and Templates, your bashing approach is what offended people. 

The source code for umbraco is readily available, and adding an additional button to the template editor (and perhaps the CSS editor) would not be terribly difficult to do.  You could always create the functionality and submit it back to codeplex as a patch.

As for the approach of allowing your editors/designers make multiple templates, I am not sure what purpose this would serve other than creating a very complicated mess of a CMS install.  I have clients who currently create nearly every page in its own template, and site management is a nightmare.  Why do they do this; I myself wonder. 

I have done sites with common elements, and different stylesheets similar to the approach of CSS Zen Garden.  Perhaps that is the way to go, allowing the user to specify the style to override the default.

Umbraco is quite powerful if you overlook some of the quirks.  Seriously give it a shot, and realize that the community really is great.

Thanks

Case

"To add a further comment.

The media section in Umbraco is very weak (e.g except users to use two sections), and we always treat media as a sub content to a Document. Keeps it all in the tree and really easy to deal with.

Would be nice if we could use this apporach and the media was also reference in a media tree. (something I'm developing at the moment).

Ttfn."

Media items are just another node. You can always allow media to be added as a child of your content items. Won't look very neat in the tree though.

Also, by calling Umbraco's use of split media/content sections weak you're also calling Sitecore, one of the main players in the .NET CMS space, weak. They use the exact same approach.

What amazes me is that you think you've got some amazing insight into the way websites are developed and run. I'd say that all of us here have ended up using Umbraco with varying backgrounds and degrees of experience with other CMSes, and we all think that your request is a little strange and out of the ordinary.

I've found Umbraco to be an extremely flexible and powerful platform on which to develop websites, with features that easily rival expensive CMSes such as Sitecore.

My very small observation being a "suit" in a creative agency.... I think what Bill is trying to accomplish is to allow his users to dynamically select an image to be included in CSS, perhaps as a background image. I would propose that instead of exposing the CSS editor to your users that you use umbraco nodes to allow the user to edit the CSS only in specific ways (thereby ensuring that no accidental mistakes are made). 

Bills type of request i think will become more and more common. In fact I was at a large blue chip company just yesterday where they were asking another VERY LARGE cms (license in the £1m + range) to do just this. That company did not have answer for this. I smiled wickedly knowing that our little open source project can handle this without a problem.

I will ask Ismail Mayat to reply to this thread on the details of how we did it.

Also bill im a little confused on the media upload. Certainly the version we are using allows a user to upload an image with the TinyMCE editor. with that they can either select from an image already in the media area, or create a new one right in the content node. http://twitpic.com/bf4x3

sorry for the poor quality snap - just wanted to show you the insert image functionality that doesnt require the user to jump back and forth.

Guys,

Not sure if this helps any but we recently had a requirement for a client so set a background image in css on a div.  That image would change as they progressed through a questionaire.  The images had to be uploaded to the media section in umbraco and needed to be configurable without the user having to edit the css, so I knocked together a bit of c# template code that would create just that css dynamically,

<%@ Import namespace="umbraco.cms.businesslogic.media" %>
<%@ Import namespace="System.IO" %>
<%@ Import namespace="System.Text" %>
<script runat="server">
string res="";
int count;
int slidesId;
string error="";
void Page_Load(object sender, EventArgs e){
    try{
     slidesId = int.Parse(umbraco.presentation.nodeFactory.Node.GetCurrent().GetProperty("slides").Value.ToString());
     Media root = new Media(slidesId);
     if(root!=null){                
        res = process(root.Children);        
        count = root.Children.Length;
        writeCssToFile(res);
     }
    }
    catch(Exception ex){
        error = ex.ToString();
    }
}

string process(Media[] medias){
    StringBuilder sb =new StringBuilder();
    int i=1;
    string slide=".slide";
    foreach(Media m in medias){
        if(i<10){
            sb.Append(slide + "0" + i.ToString());
        }
        else{
            sb.Append(slide + i.ToString());
        }
        sb.Append("{");
        sb.AppendLine();
        sb.AppendLine("background:transparent url(" + m.getProperty("umbracoFile").Value + ") repeat scroll 0 0;");
        sb.AppendLine("}");
        i++;
    }
    return sb.ToString();
}

void writeCssToFile(string res){
    string path=Server.MapPath("/css/slides.css");
        using (StreamWriter sw = new StreamWriter(path)) 
        {
        sw.Write(res);
        }
    res=path;
}

</script>

The slides property on the document type was a media picker which pointed to a folder in media where i had uploaded all the images that were going to appear on that div.   So my five pence worth is with a little creative thinking you could do what Bill is trying to achieve.

With regards to the point of having an image inserter in the css section I would not want editors messing around in there but I can see the point of being able to insert an image so that css furniture images are also controlled through the cms (i generally put then in images dir and reference manually although i already have css with references from my static html prototype so its just a matter of copying the css into umbraco and images into the images dir).

Bill one more point i would like to make is that I have been working with CMS's since 2001, I have worked with Mediasurface, Stellent , Tridion, site server, MCMS, Immediacy,Commonspot to name a few with costs ranging from thousands to hundreds of thousands so when i say umbraco is the easiest most flexible cms I have used to date with a kick ass community its a comment made from experience. 

Regards

Ismail

<!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0cm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:595.3pt 841.9pt; margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt; mso-header-margin:35.4pt; mso-footer-margin:35.4pt; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->

@bill - I'm replying cautiously as I'm almost convinced you are a fictional character designed as flame bait for the other members of this forum - however, on the basis that you are real.....

The mistake that you make is that you seem to assume that because you want a piece of functionality then it follows that every CMS should implement it. If every CMS that you have ever used has the particular feature that you are suggesting then this just goes to show that your experience of CMS systems is extremely limited.

What this topic has shown is that you want a piece of functionality which others see as largely unnecessary. You think it is essential, they don't, that is fine, people disagree all of the time.

The way I see it you have the following options:

- Implement the functionality yourself

- Pay someone else to implement it  - I'll do it if you want.

- Ask someone in the community nicely and they may do it.

- Find another CMS.

Finally, Umbraco is subtitled the friendly CMS and we like it that way. It would be nice if you could conduct yourself in a fashion where you don't tell people that they are 'wrong' because they disagree with you and describe Umbraco as 'absurd' because it doesn't function exactly as you expect.

@everyone else - thanks for this, very interesting fun read on the train this morning - the journey flew by.

Guys,

Imagine that you are a Developer/Web Developer using Umbraco, but are not allowed FTP access to the server.

Its pretty easy to create templates, css etc by using Umbraco or by copy-pasting in.

But how do you upload those background images for your css? or for hard coded <img /> tags?

This is not about the Content editor or client being able to use the Umbraco interface, but developers who do not have FTP access.

At the moment you would have to use the Media section to do upload your CSS, then find out the path to all the css images and put the references in.

What Ismail did is similar - but it is still aimed primarily at allowing the client/content editor to specify the image URLs.

I really think some of you have got the wrong end of the stick on what this guy wants to do.

So, you are a Web Developer and are typing/copy-pasting CSS into the CSS editor.

If you use the Media section to upload images that you want hard coded into the CSS - then the paths to the images are a bit convoluted and you don't have control over them.

I am afraid that short of developing some kind of plugin I am not sure what could be done to solve this.  I have a suspicion it MIGHT be possible to use URL Rewriting; maybe you could install a third part file upload tool; also someone in this thread mentioned a configuration option that may help.

I do agree it would be a nice feature to be able to upload supporting files in this way, after all JavaScript files, Templates, CSS all have a section in the Settings tree.

Any other ideas?

Can I make a quick point:
If someone is so concerned about security and not having file access to any part of the server... surely you'd also be concerned about file versioning and would prefer not to have your designers/developers hacking about in your templates without any sort of version control.

surely that's a flawed workflow?

Sure umbraco could have source versioning in templates and I'm sure people have already talked about this...(maybe for the pro version has some of this) but Umbraco doesn't need to and shouldn't try to be a be all and end all IDE/file uploader/source control in a browser. It might end up being a stinky piece of bloat if it did.

Adam,

Just had a cool idea extending on from the code snippet i provided.

1. Create a datatype called Dynamic css with one property umbracoNaviHide

2. Create another data type called css item this will be child of 1, give this a bunch of properties that you think it will need that map to css background property most important property is background url which is media picker and css class name so you would have .myclass or #myid etc

3.Create node based on 1 in the root of the site set the hide property to true.

4.In the media section create folder called css furniture upload all your images there

5.Pick cms user/s and only give them permission to the folder created based on 1 and the furniture media folder, you dont want everyone to have access to this.

6. Update the code initial code i posted but this time read the contents of node from 1 and write out the css, also make use of umbraco caching api to cache the contents of the css so you dont get performance overhead. Also create an action handler that watches the css furniture media folder so any updates to that will invalidate the cache.

Simple in theory just needs a bit of work but that would give the ability to control the images used in css through umbraco.

Regards

Ismail

Umbraco: The not so friendly (anti-Karma) community.

Poor post - riddled untruths and inaccuracies.

Bill’s comments appear to be moderated so he doesn’t seem to want anyone to disagree with what he writes (again)

"Additionally, every single reply is either a personal attack on me, or an attack on my development background of 30 years."

hm? I think everyone was being very polite and patient. The thread starter also seems to ignore the fact that umbraco (probably) wasn't built with SDLC/CMMI/SOX/DSB/FBI/CIA requirements in mind.

Right, I wasn't going to re-open this post, but as Darren stated, Bill is so kind to moderate his comments. 

I wrote this comment at his blog:

Bill,

I'm sorry to see the current situation. However, you can't solely blame the umbraco community for this. Please reread your initial post. What I'm trying to say is this: The users at the forum expect questions or suggestions. They do not expect someone to state that something is completely absurd and say that a product is incomplete (without even a single small question in the post). It's considered an attack to umbraco, the product they embraced and spend time on the forum to help others to solve problems or hand ideas on how certain things can be achieved. I'd say you did step on some toes. 

Do not blame people for trying to defend then. And I believe the first couple of answers where still very polite and friendly just to try and figure out what your needs exactly where or to give you pointers what the options are.

Regarding your post, in my opinion the most critical piece of information was left out: that you have an SDLC and operate under CMMI or SOX requirements.

As you correctly stated, most people that use umbraco do not have these requirements, thus they don't see it as problem to upload images (used for design) directly to the website instead. I'm sure your point there will be taken into a future version of Umbraco.

With your requirements it is still possible to completely use umbraco without the need of direct access to the site with FTP or something. I'm not going into that deeper here, this is not the place to discuss that IMO and the descision to drop Umbraco seems to be final anyway.

As for your remarks about the karma, you have a point there and people are aware of it. It is meant to be used so the people that actually formulate a good answer or solution can get karma. As addition to that, others that come across that post, can easily see then which answer was the best for the original poster. In this particular case, I think people were led by their emotions (you stepped some toes) and that led to wrong use of karma.

Please give the credits to the correct person that gave you the idea for the work-around, that wasn't me but Morten.

Good luck in your journey,

Peter Dijksterhuis

"Content editors may also be web designers who layout the entire site."

Stopped reading here.

About media, i did run in a nasty bug a few months ago: http://umbraco.codeplex.com/WorkItem/View.aspx?WorkItemId=22305

I had some legacy content, which i did important in the media by using zip upload, the content it self i did parse and replace it with right urls, bad thing is that the UploadAllowDirectories setting in the web.config is ignored in TinyMCE

is working on a reply...