This project is read-only.

Best Approach for Hosting Gallery with 1.6

Topics: Core, Installing Orchard, Troubleshooting
Apr 3, 2013 at 3:31 AM
I am trying to host my own gallery and the lack of up-to-date information makes this a challenge. It seems like I have the following choices:

1) Compile the GalleryServer project and compile Plugins.sln. Plugins.sln references an old version of NuGet but no one seems to know which version is used or where to find it. The source for it is not included in the CodePlex project and the ReadMe.txt doesn't provide any detail here.

2) Use NuGet Server. The Orchard team seems to indicate that this likely won't work because of schema changes. Again, this is an issue of 'which version'?

Can anyone say definitively what works with Orchard 1.6? Thank you in advance for your consideration.

Apr 5, 2013 at 8:12 AM
There is no good way to do this I'm afraid. The gallery uses a much older code base.
Apr 5, 2013 at 1:51 PM
Hi Bertrand.

So there is no way to host a gallery server feed? Could we update the CodePlex pages to reflect that this feature is no longer supported?

Apr 6, 2013 at 1:47 AM
What codeplex pages?
Apr 6, 2013 at 2:27 AM
Hi Bertrand. These pages refer to Orchard Gallery and Orchard Server:

If I am hearing you correctly, this code base is out-of-date and unsupported. If there is no working method to host my own gallery feed with modules, and if I wish to have this functionality, should I fork Orchard to add this functionality?

Apr 6, 2013 at 3:25 AM
Thanks. I added a message to both of those pages.

No, there is no method currently to host your own gallery, except by using old versions of Orchard and the gallery code.

You'd have to create your own, yes, but I'm not sure why you'd need to fork Orchard to do so.
Apr 9, 2013 at 9:53 PM
You're right. We investigated the packaging code and what we are thinking of doing is building a simple WCF Data service for hosting packages. It would not contain a UI and just allow the gallery packages enumeration and get/post functionality for packages. How does this sound?
Apr 10, 2013 at 8:25 AM
Sounds good to me.