|
|
Rank: Newbie
Groups: Member
Joined: 6/16/2010
Posts: 1
Points: 3
|
Hi everyone.. I'm really impressed with this project and want to use it as a base for my work, but has anyone had any luck getting version 2 trunk to run on PostgreSQL yet?
I have managed to get the database scripts up to date for PostgreSQL so that it successfully sets up the database, but I then get weird castle/hibernate errors when it tries to load the templates to create the test site: "a different object with the same identifier value was already associated with the session".
Some forum posts elsewhere suggested this might need an update of the NHibernate classes to a new version, but doing that seemed to break pretty much everything else!
Mono and Postgres support is very important for my projects and I would also suggest that it is probably important for the future of Cuyahoga, since it is the key advantage it has over all the other .NET CMS systems out there. Would be good if we can get this working...
|
|
Rank: Administration
Groups: Administration
, Member
Joined: 10/7/2008
Posts: 505
Points: 1,515
|
The current v2.0 is in alpha and therefore will have much left unfinished. There will be new additions to Cuyahoga very soon. I would advise sticking to V1.6 for the short term (hopefully very short term) until new developments are posted.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 6/22/2010
Posts: 33
Points: 99
|
Constructor wrote:The current v2.0 is in alpha and therefore will have much left unfinished. There will be new additions to Cuyahoga very soon. I would advise sticking to V1.6 for the short term (hopefully very short term) until new developments are posted. Hi Constructor, What sort of new stuff do you have in mind? Can you give any clues? In particular I'd really like to know the following info: * Has anyone got version 2 running on Mono (with mysql/postgres)? * Do the "new developments" mention include that support? * Are they likely to be release in the next few days/weeks or are we talking longer? If the answer to the above questions is basically "not yet" then if we spend time making modules and such for 1.6 will they work/be easy to adapt for 2.0 when it does get updated? Thanks for your help 
|
|
Rank: Administration
Groups: Administration
, Member
Joined: 10/7/2008
Posts: 505
Points: 1,515
|
The version I am currently working on is a V2.0 core with a rebuilt 'classic' Cuyahoga style admin with added features. I wish this version to be very lightweight. Currently the sources (when packed to a .rar) is about 6MB. It is a matter of days until I post on the forum regarding this. I am looking for people willing to test and post any findings. Monkeyface wrote:
What sort of new stuff do you have in mind? Can you give any clues?
In particular I'd really like to know the following info:
* Has anyone got version 2 running on Mono (with mysql/postgres)?
I have not as yet tested on anything else except .net 3.5 and SQL Server 2008. Monkeyface wrote:
* Do the "new developments" mention include that support?
In theory I have no issue with trying to get it to work on these different platforms in the future. There is a discussion there I think. I would like to see a .net version that uses the latest available features for .net. What is the impact of Mono on this? What about a Mono version that is 100% module compatible? Monkeyface wrote:
* Are they likely to be release in the next few days/weeks or are we talking longer?
Days and not week s. If you are building modules for V1.6 and want to think about builging V2.0 modules you can start by looking at ContentItem base class. You could decide that the content items in your module would inherit from ContentItem and could therefore utilise Cuyahoga's Infrastructure Services for Content (see: Cuyahoga-Extensions-Ver-1-24.pdf here http://www.cuyahoga-project.org/home/download.aspx )
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 6/22/2010
Posts: 33
Points: 99
|
Hi Constructor, Thanks for the reply. I think Mono support is a big plus point for Cuyahoga because at the moment there's no strong contender for a .NET CMS that you can run on open source operating systems with open source databases. A mono version with module compatibility might be good, although it might lag behind then. My scenario is that I want to be able to build custom web site functionality as CMS modules and then provide virtual machines to my customers with the whole system already installed, database server set up and configured and everything ready to go out of the box. If I have to license windows and SQL server, it gets very very expensive. Windows would cost about €10-15 a month per server, but if I have something that works on Mono, I can create a VPS with a cost price of just €3. Of course, I could do this in PHP but I really prefer developing in C# and visual studio and I like the Cuyahoga structure better than any PHP CMS I've found. I'm quite happy to spend some time getting 2.0 to work and debugging on Mono/Postgres although my attempts so far have come up with a number of really weird errors at run time that I don't really understand (relating to the hibernate stuff). Would be good if someone smarter could take a look p.s. I'm interested why you are trying to fit the 1.6 admin style to the new core though, I personally found the 2.0 system much tidier. If you have the whole thing as a tree, what happens if you have 100s of pages, doesn't it just look really messy?
|
|
Rank: Administration
Groups: Administration
, Member
Joined: 10/7/2008
Posts: 505
Points: 1,515
|
Monkeyface wrote:
p.s. I'm interested why you are trying to fit the 1.6 admin style to the new core though, I personally found the 2.0 system much tidier. If you have the whole thing as a tree, what happens if you have 100s of pages, doesn't it just look really messy?
I found that it was just easier and faster to use. If you have 100's of pages then you would only want to load the children of the selected node. If not then you have a very quick jQuery collapsible treeview with context menus. Both options are covered.
|
|
Rank: Administration
Groups: Administration
, Member
Joined: 10/7/2008
Posts: 505
Points: 1,515
|
I have just ran Mono Migration Analyzer on the source I have on my local machine. There were errors in the following: Code:Castle.Core.dll
CSSFriendly.dll
EPocalipse.IFilter.dll
FredCK.FCKeditorV2.dll
log4net.dll
Lucene.Net.dll
NHibernate.dll CSSFriendly.dll can be removed. I use this to get better cleaner markup. As for the others... maybe revert to previous/earlier versions of Castle and NHibernate for a Mono version? The .net source I have uses the latest NHibernate. I was surprized by these results and will look at this again. I was expecting much more in the way of errors/issues. I do understand this is just an analyzer and not real world but I was still expecting much more errors reported.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 6/22/2010
Posts: 33
Points: 99
|
Constructor wrote:
I found that it was just easier and faster to use.
If you have 100's of pages then you would only want to load the children of the selected node. If not then you have a very quick jQuery collapsible treeview with context menus. Both options are covered.
That's true. I think moving some of the options into drop-downs and using more icons and such is a good idea from a user's perspective though. The 1.6 interface looks quite complicated for a newcomer. Also in v2 I really like the ability to drag modules around, it makes it much more intuitive. CMS designs often split the editing from the viewing. I think it's much easier for users if they just click on the thing they want to edit and change it right there in the page using Ajax or drag it to a new mount point (as much as possible).
|
|
|
Guest |