O.K. I now understand how the ContentAssoc Types are meant to be used. To be shure I resume:
my_web_site [WebSite] - [WebSiteContentTo] my_web_site [Content;Type:WEB_SITE_PUB_PT] - - [ContentAssocTo;Type:PUBLISH_LINK] my_page_1 [Content;Type:PAGE_NODE] - - - [ContentAssocTo;Type:PUBLISH_LINK] my_page_1.1 [Content;Type:PAGE_NODE] ***) - - [ContentAssocTo;Type:PUBLISH_LINK] my_page_n [Content;Type:PAGE_NODE] - - [ContentAssocTo;Type:PUBLISH_LINK] doc_for_download.pdf [Content;Type:DOCUMENT] *) - - - [ContentAssocTo;Type:SUB_CONTENT] my_link_list [Content;Type:CONTENT_LIST] - - - - [ContentAssocTo;Type:SUB_CONTENT] my_first_link [Content;Type:MY_LINK] - - - - [ContentAssocTo;Type:SUB_CONTENT] my_second_link [Content;Type:MY_LINK] **) - - - [ContentAssocTo;Type:SUB_CONTENT] my_news_list [Content;Type:CONTENT_LIST] - - - - [ContentAssocTo;Type:SUB_CONTENT] my_first_news [Content;Type:NEWS] **) - - - - [ContentAssocTo;Type:SUB_CONTENT] my_second_news [Content;Type:NEWS] *) is this the exception in your statement: "The content that links to it would typically be a whole page"? ... because it could also be a DOCUMENT for example. **) one would define more content types, some generic and some project specific? ***) I can link a subpage directly to a parent page (if I want my pages organized in a tree) or I could link all pages directly to the publish point. Why do I need the SUBSITE ContentAssoc? And some more Questions: - Is the ContentOwner somehow used/relied on in the CMS? Thanks, David -----Original Message----- From: Al Byers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Mittwoch, 4. Juli 2007 01:50 To: user@ofbiz.apache.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: content management (cms) David, The CMS is not nearly the same quality as other parts of OFBiz, so don't make the mistake of giving it the benefit of doubt. Regarding the ContentAssoc entity, the current usage tends to have things called "publish points" and there is a ContentType to go along with that. That Content entity is just a place holder. Content that links to it would use PUBLISH_LINK. The content that links to it would typically be a whole page and it might have subcontent within it and that subcontent would be linked to the main page content by a SUB_CONTENT contentAssocTypeId. And usually, you would have a single site contentId which is referenced in the WebSiteContent entity, which links to the WebSite entity. Then you would have sub-publish points/sites under that and they would be linked with the SUBSITE value. -Al On 7/3/07, David Künzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The mapKey/ContentAssoc usage is clear to me. I use it for the content > structure of my web site: > > my web site publish point > - [ContentAssocTo] page 1 > - [ContentAssocTo] page n > - - [ContentAssocTo] left column content > - - [ContentAssocTo] right column content > - - - [ContentAssocTo] product featuring > - - - [ContentAssocTo] news 1 > - - - [ContentAssocTo] news 2 > - - - [ContentAssocTo] news 3 > ... > > There is another issue with the web site content tree in CMS: > It shows all types of association, not just SUB_CONTENT, SUBSITE and maybe > PUBLISH_LINK (is there btw. a convention which to use?). > > The problem is that you can create ContentAssoc circles and the tree > renderer loops forever. > For example one may want to state that the content in page 1 is related to > the content in page 2 and creates an association of type RELATED_CONTENT > from page 1 to page 2. > > -David > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Al Byers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Dienstag, 3. Juli 2007 19:30 > To: user@ofbiz.apache.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: content management (cms) > > Yes, there are definitely some issues there. When I originally coded it, I > had the meaning of the two ContentAssoc.contentId/To fields reversed from > what it is now and I may not have been consistent. The logic that David > Jones came up with is that you take the parent contentId and a mapKey and > you go "to" the subcontent. It would not make sense the other way around, > since you don't need the mapKey to go to a parent. So contentId is for the > parent and contentIdTo is for the child. > > If you are like me, you probably didn't know what mapKey was for :0) It is > basically so that a contentId can identify the subcontent that goes on a > page and the various mapKeys (eg. MAIN, SUMMARY, HEADER, FOOTER, etc.) > identify where they go on a page. > > I don't think the current documentation will help you much. I was swamped > yesterday, but I will try to put together a list of where current examples > are. I just did a site where the CMS was used to manage content for > various > pages. I think that code should go back into the project, but I need to > talk > to the client to make sure it is ok and then figure out in what form it > should go in. > > -Al > > On 7/3/07, David Künzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Al, everyone, > > another thing that looks strange to me is that <@limitedSubContent ... > > takes > > an argument subContent which is used as the "contentAssoc TO" and > returns > > the "contentAssoc FROM". This indicates that "contentAssoc TO" is the > > subcontent but then I get back the "parent content" and from the name of > > the > > <@limitedSubContent ... function I'd expect to get subcontents. > > > > I know there was an issue with content/subcontent direction. Is this > still > > a > > problem? > > > > Thanks, David > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Al Byers [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Montag, 2. Juli 2007 17:14 > > To: user@ofbiz.apache.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: content management (cms) > > > > David, > > > > I doubt that there is a more stable version. I coded much of the > original > > CMS from David Jone's design, but Andrew Zeneski has added a lot of > > enhancements with which I am still becoming familiar. > > > > I am using CMS for sites other than e-commerce and would be glad to > answer > > your questions, if I can, though I struggle with it a bit, myself. > > > > -Al > > > > On 7/2/07, David Künzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > I'm using the content/WebSites/CMS functionality to build a Web Site > and > > I > > > have many questions I'll post in the dev Mailing List. > > > > > > For this list my question is which OFBiz version I should use. At the > > > moment > > > I use the trunk from SVN which seems to have some bugs. > > > > > > Is there a more stable version? Is there a more functional version > > (could > > > also be that someone has it but didn't commit yet)? > > > > > > > > > > > > Is anyone using the CMS to build Web Sites (not just for e-commerce)? > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, David > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
