What is Content? --> ContentItem or ContentPart?

Dec 22, 2010 at 3:19 PM
Edited Dec 22, 2010 at 3:20 PM

It's all about content ofcourse, that is why it's called an CMS.

Is it ok to say that everything "that can be visible" IS content?

If i want to let my "pageflow / workflow / wizard" functionality be content then i guess i have 2 options:

1) Multiple ContentItems
My pageflow controller wtih 5 steps i have 5 ContentItems belonging to a session and each ContentItem has ContentParts..

2) One ContentItem with ContentParts having ContentParts
My pageflow controller creates a single ContentItem belonging to a session... a contentItem with ContentParts and nested ContentParts.

Dec 22, 2010 at 3:26 PM

In case i choose for option 2:

- i could let the route to Create always create one contentItem;
- use the repository to create a pageflowSession with the Content.Id;
- redirect to step1 using the SessionGuid or ContentId somehow in the RouteValueDictionary.

Coordinator
Dec 22, 2010 at 7:04 PM

Content parts do not have content parts, so option 2 is not a possibility. Still there could be an option 2' which would be to have one content item for which the different parts are not all shown at the same time. Your parts could for example implement some common interface that handles the wizard pagination.

Dec 22, 2010 at 10:14 PM

ok one content item with several content parts.
I do think to create a PageflowRecord and add a column ContentItem_Id

The whole pageflow model will contain one ContentItem then and a step uses mostly one ContentPart.

But my question, and the topic:
Is it ok to say that everything "that can be visible" IS content?

Coordinator
Dec 22, 2010 at 10:27 PM

Well, content parts already have a reference to their content item so you won't need to add that yourself.

Yes, it's pretty safe to say that what's visible is content.

Dec 22, 2010 at 11:01 PM

I ment a own table not as a contentpart but more as a pageflow session that is instantly created

Op 23 dec. 2010 00:39 schreef "bertrandleroy" <notifications@codeplex.com> het volgende:
> From: bertrandleroy
>
> Well, content parts already have a reference to their content item so you won't need to add that yourself.Yes, it's pretty safe to say that what's visible is content.
>
>
Coordinator
Dec 22, 2010 at 11:31 PM

I don't understand what you mean. Can you explain?

Dec 23, 2010 at 7:28 AM
bertrandleroy wrote:

I don't understand what you mean. Can you explain?

A session won't ever be visible so it isn't a ContentPart?
Isn't it normal (even in Orchard) to store data in the database?

What i have in mind is to create a pageflow session to which a contentitem belongs to.
That way every GET from that client will provide a hidden field or something containing a GUID so it'll query the contentitem out of the database.

In ASP WebForms i knew there was a sessionstate and that state could be stored into SqlServer, automaticly.
But even in that case i think i want my own pageflow session management, there is a requirement that everything must be logged and maybe google analytics won't be enough to provide such information the way the customer wants it.

Just out of curiousity: Is there a sort of sessionstate in ASP.NET MVC / Orchard?
How would u provide the client browser with information so it can re-query data without the client logging in?

Coordinator
Dec 23, 2010 at 7:57 AM

Sure, Session is still available. You can also store state on those custom items.