Where is everybody, I have been working hard at getting OmniPortal out the door and implimented many of the talked about features. Such as content that is not bound to specific control. I did this my syndicating the content, using the Atom feed scheme. It's
actually pretty neat because now one module that is for Articles can pick up a blog feed, and format it like articles would. Well e-mail me if you are interested in starting to work again.
I'm planning to wait until Beta 2 of VS 2005 before I start on any significant GCN 2.0 work. Right now, I'm using the CTP versions to try and get up to speed on ASP.NET 2.0, but I should be ready when beta 2 comes out later this spring.
Since July 1st I've been with a consulting firm working 80-110 hours/week. I am no longer there! :) Starting this week I am working on defining
what the CSK 2.0 should provide as an experience, and what we should leave out to make it a true Starter Kit. Architecture will also be addressed...
Keith Barrows
Ad Astra Per Aspera - "To the stars thru difficulties"
I have released version 2005.0 today. I know some of you have commented on nothing being released for the past year. Here is what you will find at
http://sourceforge.net/projects/omniportal
I would love to get back involved in this. I have been tied up for so long but things are freeing up and would enjoy a good .NET2 project.
You won't beleive how much I have accomplished in the last year. It is by far leaps and bounds over CSK, in fact I think we should pull a netscape and just jump straight to version 3. [:)] My current work is at
http://www.omniportal.net it doesn't look like much but most of my work has been under the covers.
I'm really interested in the new starter kit(s) that Scott Guthrie mentioned in one of his channel 9 videos. He said they were planning to release some new starter kits (though they may not have that name). He didn't say if this would be one single starter
kit covering all these different areas, or several smaller kits covering more focused areas like the .NET 1.x kits were. But he did say they were targeting common community site functionality like blogs and forums, and also said they were going to base them
off of Telligent's CommunityServer.
I haven't gotten more details, but I think I'll start following the CommunityServer forum watching for more info.
Since CommunityServer implements a lot of the ASP.NET 2.0 bits already (Roles and Membership plus Master Pages to name only a few) it stands to reason that this would be a very good platform to move to pure ASP.NET 2.0. Quite a lot of the ASP.NET 2.0 feature
set was pioneered by Rob Howards work on ASP.NET forums 2.0 before he left Microsoft to start Telligent.
Since the hardest parts of a community site by far are the blog and forum modules, and Community Server is outstanding in these areas, it stands to reason that it would make a good foundation to work from for a CSK/GCN replacement. My biggest concern of
course is the licensing issues. CommunityServer is free for non-profit use only as long as you use the Telligent logo on your site... but the license is much more restrictive than the MS Start Kit Shared Source license was. So I'm curious about how new starter
kits from MS would be licenses.
Also, the CommunityServer only implements a photogallery, blog, and forum module. It lacks the other modules that CSK/GCN have and I'm not sure exactly how easy it is to extend CommunityServer with new modules (guess I need to start working with it and find
out). Ideally, I'd like to see some way for GCN to inherit CommunityServer's modules and core framework (but on a pure ASP.NET 2.0 platform), maintain a migration path for CSK/GCN 1.x users, and it would be extra sweet if it could easily consume DNN modules
too.
I know, that is asking quite a lot.
Anyway... Scott mentioned the new kit(s) are something we'll be hearing about in 6 months or so.
Also, the CommunityServer only implements a photogallery, blog, and forum module. It lacks the other modules that CSK/GCN have and I'm not sure exactly how easy it is to extend CommunityServer with new modules (guess I need to start working with it and find
out). Ideally, I'd like to see some way for GCN to inherit CommunityServer's modules and core framework (but on a pure ASP.NET 2.0 platform), maintain a migration path for CSK/GCN 1.x users, and it would be extra sweet if it could easily consume DNN modules
too.
Redd, it's nice to see you stalking these forums again. As far as what you have been talking about, I really think we should stay away from CommunityServer for a GCN release, because the license really limits us. Also I have had some great success intigrating
in CS Forums, Blogs, and the Gallery in to the module system I have been working on. It would also be very easy to intigrate their roles and membership system in to the model too.
But here is the problem that I find with most modules in the current systems today (Rainbow Portal, DNN, GSK, CSK, etc), the modules developers I required to know the current roles that will be used in the portal. Or be forced into a micro-set of the roles
that are the same for all the systems. But I think I have the answer to that. Modules define tasks, the section relates the tasks to actually roles in the system, and the roles/membership system relates roles to users, and that is how users can be giving
rights to do certain things. This way a module developer can create a 100 different tasks with out knowing the portal roles that the module will be binding against in some portal.
I am really looking forward to getting back to work with you guys, and as soon as I get the admin section done, I will be setting up a sandbox at OmniPortal.net for anybody who wishes to snoop around.
I agree, the CommunityServer License is too restrictive for our uses. But if MS is releasing new starter kits built on CS, then I would give it good odds that the MS product will have the same kind of license they used for previous kits.
I love Community Server, but unless we can distribute source code, it is pointless. I think the top priority for any GCN/CSK replacement must be that the entire base product be available in source form (no commercial components or modules at all) just like
the CSK was. Optional components can require a license and only come in object form, but the core product and basic modules must be source.
How well will OmniPortal translate to ASP.NET 2.0? I don't mean as in "making it compile and run" since 2.0 is fairly good about backwards compatibility, I mean how much of your code will translate well if it were rearchitected on the 2.0 platform at the core
(memberhsip, roles, profiles, using provider modle, master pages, themes, datasources, etc.)?
Datasources are ASP.NET 2.0's replacement for data adapters. It is an abstraction of all the plumbing necessary for ADO connections. They are quite powerful, though also quite... well.... abstract. I'm still not sure how I feel about them, though I have been
using them extensively for about 6 months now. All I can say is that they are certainly "different" from ADO operations in 1.1, and they work fantastically well in the 90% cases.
Okay well this will be awsome, I haven't had much of a chance to check them out. But on your recommendation I will take a look at them. [;)]
Redd
Anyway... With GCN 2, one of my own goals is to use as little custom architecture as possible. I'd like the design of the app to follow the standard ASP.NET 2.0 patterns as much as possible. One of CSK's biggest failings was that it was amazingly easy to setup
and use, but really hard for beginner or hobby programmers to customize since the architecture was so far outside what you'd learn in any book or class (and it didn't help that it used a design that neither matrix nor VS.NET was equipped to help you with).
I want to avoid that mistake in 2.0 by leveraging as much of the native framework as possible everywhere possible. This should be fine since the ASP.NET 2.0 team tackled the biggest areas that drove the CSK architecture in the first place (themes and skinnable
output).
The up-side of this would be that the design and architecture of GCN 2 would be very simple compared to the CSK/GCN 1x. We'll still need to take control of the request pipeline, but not quite to the extent that the CSK did.
I have to totally agree witht is statement. But I think we need to provide a little more than just a URL Rewriter. Basically if I read this right, what you are saying is that we need to follow ASP.NET guidelines so when uses decide to sit down and develop
a portal they don't have to inherit custom controls and it is as easy as creating a Web.Config and a couple pages? If I am correct, in reading what you have said, OmniPortal is already to that point. To create a module a user only has to create a couple
controls, not inheriting any kind of backend control, and create a Module.config that maps the page reference to the control.
Redd
We only have to intercept the request and URL rewrite to a base page that handles that type of request (instead of rewriting to a single page).
I am not sure I understand what you mean by "rewrite to a base page that handles that type", are you talking about in terms of ASPX writting verses RSS writting of the output? If this is the case the simpler solution would be to handle only ASPX writing,
in terms of theming, and then let everything else go out through a handler. Because writing Images and RSS Feeds and what ever seems more advanced than the Joe User you are talking about.
Redd
Starpilot has a lot of ideas on the XML and RSS front. I'm still not sure how that will pan out though. He's thinking of storing content data as XML in the database to facilitate both formatting and RSS output. But I'm pretty sure that we'll want to stay relational
at the data store if we want to support more than one data store. We could go relational for databases that only support that, and XML in SQL 2005/Oracle where it enjoys native support.... but that seems a lot of work. I'm not sure what the advantage would
be if other providers have to support relational storage... so it would probably be best to just store relational and translate from DataTables to XML when necessary at the external interfaces. But he's a little ahead of me in that department so I'll see what
he comes up with.
I remember talk to StarPilot about this awhile ago, it seems like a valid flow. I actually implimented this in a simple way to see if it could work, and it works great in ATOM 0.3, because of how they have set up the feed. I personally don't think we should
control the database and what a developer down the line wants to do with the database end. Let's just create an interface/provider solution to fit out needs for GCN 2.
Redd
I need to spend some time with OmniPortal and get more familiar with the internals. I'll probably do that as soon as I finish tearing through CommunityServer (lots of good tricks in there). Hopefully I'll have time to do that while we're still in design on
GCN.
I hope you will say the same about OmniPortal. I beleive that if we wanted to go down the line of GCN taking the OmniPortal code (which I am not opposed to, because I just want to see something materialize for all my work), we could make a couple of versions,
a simple version that is very dumbed down for the newbie. Then maybe an advanced version that is most like the current version I am using. But both will handle the URL, Theme, Security, and Control loading the same way.
I can control the simplicity of the layout, because my configuration and physical path logic are both based in providers. So they are very easy to switch out.
Basic Web Folder - /bin /Data /Themes /Modules * {normal ASP.NET 2.0 theme files} Web.Config {contains single community configuration}
Advanced Web Folder - /bin /Communities /1 /Modules /Themes Community.config {contains community 1's configuration} /2 /Modules /Themes Community.config {contains community 2's configuration} /Default /Modules /Themes Community.config {contains fail over configuration}
This is at least what I could invision if we choose to go downt he simplistic path. The problem with having only a simple version is that it disqualifies the power users and doesn't make us compeditive with DNN.
That is just my 2 cents but I like where this conversation is going.
I have to totally agree witht is statement. But I think we need to provide a little more than just a URL Rewriter. Basically if I read this right, what you are saying is that we need to follow ASP.NET guidelines so when uses decide to sit down and develop
a portal they don't have to inherit custom controls and it is as easy as creating a Web.Config and a couple pages?
Not exactly. I didn't mean we have to dumb it down and use beginner techniques everywhere.
I simply mean that where possible we should use the tools the framework provides following the "standard" pattern of implementing those features. For example, instead of using a completely custom data access layer that directly creates connection and command
objects, we can use DataSources, DataSets, TableAdapters, DataTables, etc. If we need a highly "customized" data component we can use the ObjectDataSource on the front-end that hooks to our custom data object on the back-end. This isn't trivial nor "dummed
down", but it is a pattern supported by the framework and is a technique that would be taught in intermediate programming books. It is a technique that still enjoys visual designer support in VS 2005, while also allowing for very tight control of the actual
data access code.
Fortunatly the 2.0 framework is complete enough to where we have much less need for totally custom patterns. I want to maximize usefulness of Visual Studio in customizing the app. In the CSK you basically got intellisense and some color-coding out of VS.NET
and that was it. I'd like our new app to be friendly to the visual designers too where possible.
I simply mean that where possible we should use the tools the framework provides following the "standard" pattern of implementing those features. For example, instead of using a completely custom data access layer that directly creates connection and command
objects, we can use DataSources, DataSets, TableAdapters, DataTables, etc. If we need a highly "customized" data component we can use the ObjectDataSource on the front-end that hooks to our custom data object on the back-end. This isn't trivial nor "dummed
down", but it is a pattern supported by the framework and is a technique that would be taught in intermediate programming books. It is a technique that still enjoys visual designer support in VS 2005, while also allowing for very tight control of the actual
data access code.
Okay i am starting to see where you are going with this. I currently have made OmniPortal compatible and used as much of the 1.1 code as possible, to do just as you say make it easy, and reduce the code base. In addition as I hear about new technologies
from 2.0 I try to make sure my code is compatible. For example when I heard about the RolesManager in 2.0, I redesigned my authentication scheme to use a Roles Provider (or AuthorizationProvider), there will be no problem merging these two concepts in the
future and probably even replacing AuthorizationProvider with RolesManager at some point. Also I have a file called Template.ascx that is a lot like the Master pages in 2.0, I expect to switch those over as soon as I get my hands on a copy of 2.0.
Like I have said before we are on the same pages as how we want to see a portal system developed. I think GSK is going to be an awsome addition to the .NET developers tool kit. Also in the effort to beat a dead horse. [:)] I would like to see something
come out of all the work that I have put in to OmniPortal. I don't really care if you guys rip it apart, because as far as I am conserned you guys probably have a better understand of ASP.NET 2.0 than I do right now. However OmniPortal will definitly be
a good starting point, since it was originally developed off the CSK framework.
A quick note, somebody I remember remarked about how slow OmniPortal was. I have done some testing and it looks like this is in part the CSS2 rendering that IE has to do. It is rather bad at rendering CSS2 quickly. In addition I have tracked down some
of the load problems to my hosting provider. Just trying to keep everybody updated and keep it performanced tuned.
My two cents and questions. I have become adequately familiar with the CSK / GCN to a fair point. I have tried to convert over the GCN to 2.0 but run into snags with the FreeTextBox and some other areas... However, all that aside - from my catching up
on 2.0.
Primary concern is handling of Roles : The authentification / User Profiles are now web.config configurable. However, I fore-see an issue with the CSK /GCNs ability to host multiple sites (under 2.0) and I know for my customized version I have slightly
different registration routines I can use per community. Somehow I see adopting the 2.0 methods would limit not enhance the ability to handle roles and profiles in terms of a multiple - community scenario. Will 2.0 be able to handle the current GCN method
of handling users / authenitifcation / profiles on a per community basis - be able to be handled by the new 2.0 or will there still need to be a custom roles provider to handle all of this?
A custom membership, roles, or profile provider probably isn't necessary. The built-in system is designed for multi-application hosting from within a single SQL database, and it does it through a convieniently programmagle property that we can play with.
The application name property of the built-in providers has the wonderful ability to be "abused" in all kinds of neat ways. It was intended to allow more than one website to use the same database, but maintain different lists of users, roles, and profiles
and mappings between each that are unique to each applicaiton.... or to allow more than one application to share a common database of users and roles.
The interesting thing is though, you can mix application names for each provider, and change the applicaiton name before the providers get invoked (in an HttpModule or HttpHandler).
So for the CSK/GCN all you have to do is set the application name based on the community in an HttpModule.
I'm already using this technique in one of my 2.0 based applications, though in a different way.
The system has amazing flexability as it is. I'm not sure we would need to have a custom provider at all. We can offer features like user sharing, role sharing, or profile sharing between communities by playing with these settings at the beginning of the
request and we can maintain completely isolated databases of user, role, and profile too. No custom provider, just a tiny bit of custom manipulation at the beginning of the request pipeline.
Yes I agree with Redd, I don't foresee any problem with roles/membership in 2.0. We can just make the community the application name, and to insure that it is not duplicated even in the same instance we can use a community GUID as the application name. I
have been experimenting with this, and it seems like it is a flexable solution to what we need.
Participant
782 Points
2251 Posts
[2.0] Where is everybody
Jan 13, 2005 03:45 PM|nberardi|LINK
Member
35 Points
1060 Posts
Re: [2.0] Where is everybody
Jan 17, 2005 04:56 PM|Redd|LINK
http://www.reddnet.net
Member
30 Points
247 Posts
ASPInsiders
Re: [2.0] Where is everybody
Jan 18, 2005 06:38 PM|StarPilot|LINK
Ad Astra Per Aspera - "To the stars thru difficulties"
Participant
782 Points
2251 Posts
Re: [2.0] Where is everybody
Jan 19, 2005 08:55 AM|nberardi|LINK
Participant
782 Points
2251 Posts
Re: [2.0] Where is everybody
Feb 14, 2005 04:15 PM|nberardi|LINK
Participant
782 Points
2251 Posts
Re: [2.0] Where is everybody
Mar 07, 2005 01:30 PM|nberardi|LINK
None
0 Points
28 Posts
Re: [2.0] Where is everybody
Apr 12, 2005 05:53 PM|seanalex|LINK
Hi all,
I would love to get back involved in this. I have been tied up for so long but things are freeing up and would enjoy a good .NET2 project.
Sean Alexander
Participant
782 Points
2251 Posts
Re: [2.0] Where is everybody
Apr 12, 2005 06:30 PM|nberardi|LINK
None
0 Points
28 Posts
Re: [2.0] Where is everybody
Apr 12, 2005 10:04 PM|seanalex|LINK
Participant
782 Points
2251 Posts
Re: [2.0] Where is everybody
Apr 12, 2005 10:44 PM|nberardi|LINK
Member
35 Points
1060 Posts
Re: [2.0] Where is everybody
Apr 12, 2005 11:03 PM|Redd|LINK
I'm really interested in the new starter kit(s) that Scott Guthrie mentioned in one of his channel 9 videos. He said they were planning to release some new starter kits (though they may not have that name). He didn't say if this would be one single starter kit covering all these different areas, or several smaller kits covering more focused areas like the .NET 1.x kits were. But he did say they were targeting common community site functionality like blogs and forums, and also said they were going to base them off of Telligent's CommunityServer.
I haven't gotten more details, but I think I'll start following the CommunityServer forum watching for more info.
Since CommunityServer implements a lot of the ASP.NET 2.0 bits already (Roles and Membership plus Master Pages to name only a few) it stands to reason that this would be a very good platform to move to pure ASP.NET 2.0. Quite a lot of the ASP.NET 2.0 feature set was pioneered by Rob Howards work on ASP.NET forums 2.0 before he left Microsoft to start Telligent.
Since the hardest parts of a community site by far are the blog and forum modules, and Community Server is outstanding in these areas, it stands to reason that it would make a good foundation to work from for a CSK/GCN replacement. My biggest concern of course is the licensing issues. CommunityServer is free for non-profit use only as long as you use the Telligent logo on your site... but the license is much more restrictive than the MS Start Kit Shared Source license was. So I'm curious about how new starter kits from MS would be licenses.
Also, the CommunityServer only implements a photogallery, blog, and forum module. It lacks the other modules that CSK/GCN have and I'm not sure exactly how easy it is to extend CommunityServer with new modules (guess I need to start working with it and find out). Ideally, I'd like to see some way for GCN to inherit CommunityServer's modules and core framework (but on a pure ASP.NET 2.0 platform), maintain a migration path for CSK/GCN 1.x users, and it would be extra sweet if it could easily consume DNN modules too.
I know, that is asking quite a lot.
Anyway... Scott mentioned the new kit(s) are something we'll be hearing about in 6 months or so.
Will be worth a look though.
http://www.reddnet.net
None
0 Points
28 Posts
Re: [2.0] Where is everybody
Apr 12, 2005 11:18 PM|seanalex|LINK
Participant
782 Points
2251 Posts
Re: [2.0] Where is everybody
Apr 13, 2005 08:50 AM|nberardi|LINK
Redd, it's nice to see you stalking these forums again. As far as what you have been talking about, I really think we should stay away from CommunityServer for a GCN release, because the license really limits us. Also I have had some great success intigrating in CS Forums, Blogs, and the Gallery in to the module system I have been working on. It would also be very easy to intigrate their roles and membership system in to the model too.
But here is the problem that I find with most modules in the current systems today (Rainbow Portal, DNN, GSK, CSK, etc), the modules developers I required to know the current roles that will be used in the portal. Or be forced into a micro-set of the roles that are the same for all the systems. But I think I have the answer to that. Modules define tasks, the section relates the tasks to actually roles in the system, and the roles/membership system relates roles to users, and that is how users can be giving rights to do certain things. This way a module developer can create a 100 different tasks with out knowing the portal roles that the module will be binding against in some portal.
I am really looking forward to getting back to work with you guys, and as soon as I get the admin section done, I will be setting up a sandbox at OmniPortal.net for anybody who wishes to snoop around.
Member
35 Points
1060 Posts
Re: [2.0] Where is everybody
Apr 13, 2005 10:23 AM|Redd|LINK
I agree, the CommunityServer License is too restrictive for our uses. But if MS is releasing new starter kits built on CS, then I would give it good odds that the MS product will have the same kind of license they used for previous kits.
I love Community Server, but unless we can distribute source code, it is pointless. I think the top priority for any GCN/CSK replacement must be that the entire base product be available in source form (no commercial components or modules at all) just like the CSK was. Optional components can require a license and only come in object form, but the core product and basic modules must be source.
http://www.reddnet.net
Participant
782 Points
2251 Posts
Re: [2.0] Where is everybody
Apr 13, 2005 11:29 AM|nberardi|LINK
I totally agree with that. That is why I am trying to put together something useful. So far I have 5 modules done and one planned:
I also have a Gallery Module planned.
What modules am I missing, I want to try and make this as complete as possible for potential users.
None
0 Points
28 Posts
Re: [2.0] Where is everybody
Apr 20, 2005 06:39 PM|seanalex|LINK
Ok given that Beta 2 just came out is it fair to say that now is a good time to start developing the GCN v2?
what are ppls thoughts on that?
on that note http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/express/vwd/starterkit/default.aspx
is the link to some starterkits for .NET 2.0
Sean
Participant
782 Points
2251 Posts
Re: [2.0] Where is everybody
Apr 20, 2005 07:06 PM|nberardi|LINK
Member
35 Points
1060 Posts
Re: [2.0] Where is everybody
Apr 21, 2005 10:17 PM|Redd|LINK
http://www.reddnet.net
Participant
782 Points
2251 Posts
Re: [2.0] Where is everybody
Apr 25, 2005 03:24 PM|nberardi|LINK
Okay well this will be awsome, I haven't had much of a chance to check them out. But on your recommendation I will take a look at them. [;)]
I have to totally agree witht is statement. But I think we need to provide a little more than just a URL Rewriter. Basically if I read this right, what you are saying is that we need to follow ASP.NET guidelines so when uses decide to sit down and develop a portal they don't have to inherit custom controls and it is as easy as creating a Web.Config and a couple pages? If I am correct, in reading what you have said, OmniPortal is already to that point. To create a module a user only has to create a couple controls, not inheriting any kind of backend control, and create a Module.config that maps the page reference to the control.
I am not sure I understand what you mean by "rewrite to a base page that handles that type", are you talking about in terms of ASPX writting verses RSS writting of the output? If this is the case the simpler solution would be to handle only ASPX writing, in terms of theming, and then let everything else go out through a handler. Because writing Images and RSS Feeds and what ever seems more advanced than the Joe User you are talking about.
I remember talk to StarPilot about this awhile ago, it seems like a valid flow. I actually implimented this in a simple way to see if it could work, and it works great in ATOM 0.3, because of how they have set up the feed. I personally don't think we should control the database and what a developer down the line wants to do with the database end. Let's just create an interface/provider solution to fit out needs for GCN 2.
I hope you will say the same about OmniPortal. I beleive that if we wanted to go down the line of GCN taking the OmniPortal code (which I am not opposed to, because I just want to see something materialize for all my work), we could make a couple of versions, a simple version that is very dumbed down for the newbie. Then maybe an advanced version that is most like the current version I am using. But both will handle the URL, Theme, Security, and Control loading the same way.
I can control the simplicity of the layout, because my configuration and physical path logic are both based in providers. So they are very easy to switch out.
This is at least what I could invision if we choose to go downt he simplistic path. The problem with having only a simple version is that it disqualifies the power users and doesn't make us compeditive with DNN.
That is just my 2 cents but I like where this conversation is going.
Member
35 Points
1060 Posts
Re: [2.0] Where is everybody
Apr 25, 2005 04:35 PM|Redd|LINK
Not exactly. I didn't mean we have to dumb it down and use beginner techniques everywhere.
I simply mean that where possible we should use the tools the framework provides following the "standard" pattern of implementing those features. For example, instead of using a completely custom data access layer that directly creates connection and command objects, we can use DataSources, DataSets, TableAdapters, DataTables, etc. If we need a highly "customized" data component we can use the ObjectDataSource on the front-end that hooks to our custom data object on the back-end. This isn't trivial nor "dummed down", but it is a pattern supported by the framework and is a technique that would be taught in intermediate programming books. It is a technique that still enjoys visual designer support in VS 2005, while also allowing for very tight control of the actual data access code.
Fortunatly the 2.0 framework is complete enough to where we have much less need for totally custom patterns. I want to maximize usefulness of Visual Studio in customizing the app. In the CSK you basically got intellisense and some color-coding out of VS.NET and that was it. I'd like our new app to be friendly to the visual designers too where possible.
http://www.reddnet.net
Participant
782 Points
2251 Posts
Re: [2.0] Where is everybody
Apr 25, 2005 05:24 PM|nberardi|LINK
Okay i am starting to see where you are going with this. I currently have made OmniPortal compatible and used as much of the 1.1 code as possible, to do just as you say make it easy, and reduce the code base. In addition as I hear about new technologies from 2.0 I try to make sure my code is compatible. For example when I heard about the RolesManager in 2.0, I redesigned my authentication scheme to use a Roles Provider (or AuthorizationProvider), there will be no problem merging these two concepts in the future and probably even replacing AuthorizationProvider with RolesManager at some point. Also I have a file called Template.ascx that is a lot like the Master pages in 2.0, I expect to switch those over as soon as I get my hands on a copy of 2.0.
Like I have said before we are on the same pages as how we want to see a portal system developed. I think GSK is going to be an awsome addition to the .NET developers tool kit. Also in the effort to beat a dead horse. [:)] I would like to see something come out of all the work that I have put in to OmniPortal. I don't really care if you guys rip it apart, because as far as I am conserned you guys probably have a better understand of ASP.NET 2.0 than I do right now. However OmniPortal will definitly be a good starting point, since it was originally developed off the CSK framework.
Participant
782 Points
2251 Posts
Re: [2.0] Where is everybody
Apr 29, 2005 11:38 AM|nberardi|LINK
A quick note, somebody I remember remarked about how slow OmniPortal was. I have done some testing and it looks like this is in part the CSS2 rendering that IE has to do. It is rather bad at rendering CSS2 quickly. In addition I have tracked down some of the load problems to my hosting provider. Just trying to keep everybody updated and keep it performanced tuned.
Member
291 Points
982 Posts
Re: [2.0] Where is everybody
Apr 30, 2005 05:33 PM|jodywbcb|LINK
My two cents and questions. I have become adequately familiar with the CSK / GCN to a fair point. I have tried to convert over the GCN to 2.0 but run into snags with the FreeTextBox and some other areas... However, all that aside - from my catching up on 2.0.
Primary concern is handling of Roles : The authentification / User Profiles are now web.config configurable. However, I fore-see an issue with the CSK /GCNs ability to host multiple sites (under 2.0) and I know for my customized version I have slightly different registration routines I can use per community. Somehow I see adopting the 2.0 methods would limit not enhance the ability to handle roles and profiles in terms of a multiple - community scenario. Will 2.0 be able to handle the current GCN method of handling users / authenitifcation / profiles on a per community basis - be able to be handled by the new 2.0 or will there still need to be a custom roles provider to handle all of this?
My Blogs on .Net 2.0 and Ajax
http://csk.wbcb.com
http://ArtbyJody.com
Member
35 Points
1060 Posts
Re: [2.0] Where is everybody
May 01, 2005 01:36 AM|Redd|LINK
A custom membership, roles, or profile provider probably isn't necessary. The built-in system is designed for multi-application hosting from within a single SQL database, and it does it through a convieniently programmagle property that we can play with.
The application name property of the built-in providers has the wonderful ability to be "abused" in all kinds of neat ways. It was intended to allow more than one website to use the same database, but maintain different lists of users, roles, and profiles and mappings between each that are unique to each applicaiton.... or to allow more than one application to share a common database of users and roles.
The interesting thing is though, you can mix application names for each provider, and change the applicaiton name before the providers get invoked (in an HttpModule or HttpHandler).
So for the CSK/GCN all you have to do is set the application name based on the community in an HttpModule.
I'm already using this technique in one of my 2.0 based applications, though in a different way.
The system has amazing flexability as it is. I'm not sure we would need to have a custom provider at all. We can offer features like user sharing, role sharing, or profile sharing between communities by playing with these settings at the beginning of the request and we can maintain completely isolated databases of user, role, and profile too. No custom provider, just a tiny bit of custom manipulation at the beginning of the request pipeline.
http://www.reddnet.net
Participant
782 Points
2251 Posts
Re: [2.0] Where is everybody
May 01, 2005 09:05 AM|nberardi|LINK