http://www.cmsmatrix.org/
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 9:24 AM, Jonathan Parker < [email protected]> wrote: > Keep a lookout for Umbraco 5 as well as this is going to be written in > ASP.NET MVC. > > > On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 10:48 PM, Grant Molloy <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Grant, >> >> There's plenty of CMS' to choose from here.. >> http://www.cmswire.com/cms/products/ >> >> I've had a look at Umbraco, DNN and SiteFinity.. >> They're all pretty good, although DNN doesn't appear to target the same >> audience as Umbraco and SiteFinity. >> >> Grant >> >> >> >> On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 8:08 PM, Grant Maw <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hey David >>> >>> Thanks for the detailed response. >>> >>> We have to use a .net solution because the client is heavily invested in >>> .net already and we want to re-use as much as we can in terms of existing >>> skills and existing code. We are already working with DNN but Sitefinity >>> came onto our radar and I was just curious as to what people's experiences >>> were. We'll probably grab the free copy and evaluate it, as well as the one >>> you mention below. >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> Grant >>> >>> On 16 March 2010 15:10, David Connors <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> On 16 March 2010 14:40, Grant Maw <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Wondering if anyone has used Telerik's Sitefinity product before, and >>>>> if so, what are your thoughts on it as opposed to the other .net CMSs >>>>> (DotNetNuke in particular). How do you rate it in terms of the learning >>>>> curve from a developer perspective, ease of deployment of apps, source >>>>> control issues (if any) etc >>>>> >>>>> Any and all comments appreciated >>>>> >>>> >>>> I've not used Sitefinity (looks pretty simplistic from the screenies) >>>> but as far as my wide and varied search has gone over the years, there are >>>> no good content management solutions for .NET. If you're after something >>>> that doesn't pump out some debacle based on web.forms with multiple URLs >>>> for >>>> the same piece of content, etc then you're fresh out of luck. We have >>>> always >>>> ended up doing bespoke solutions for customers - at least that way we can >>>> ensure we're generating content that is not clogged up with >>>> viewstate/__dopostback/entire-page-wrapped-in-<form>-tags and other >>>> web.forms junk. >>>> >>>> We did an eval of DNN as a basis for making ozdotnet a web based forum >>>> (using ActiveForums + the mail connector) and found it particularly >>>> irritating in terms of the final content rendered and the general pain of >>>> using the content management application. You end up spending so much time >>>> fighting their crappy framework that you start to think you might just be >>>> better writing it all yourself. It is also heavy on the data tier so, like >>>> most open source amateur night endeavours, a caching strategy (and >>>> associated pain for highly dynamic sites) is mandatory, not optional. There >>>> was a whole bunch of stuff in DNN screwed at the time like the scheduler >>>> not >>>> working - and the developers did not appear to give a rats about fixing the >>>> issues (only to give you the normal useless nerd tech support answer of a >>>> lecture about not using a web based scheduler but writing a service instead >>>> - which is good advice except if you're trying to make a COTS package like >>>> ActiveForums work and it is built around the web based scheduler) >>>> >>>> The best thing we've come across is KenticoCMS however it has a lot of >>>> odd behaviours (multiple URLs for the same piece of content, >>>> www.codify.com/lists is not the same as www.codify.com/lists/, >>>> confusion between folders and pages, scalability issues and so on). The >>>> content management application experience is still less than ideal (you >>>> really need to know HTML to get the result you want online) and you end up >>>> writing everything in MS Word and then converting it to ASCII then marking >>>> it up again in HTML inside the CMS. Their HTML rich editor will defeat your >>>> every attempt at getting a consistent result on the page. Simple tasks like >>>> rearranging ten pages is very difficult due to tree views refreshing on >>>> every operation and so on. Plus it is not cheap if you want to host >>>> multiple >>>> sites. But it is the best of a bad bunch in my view and lets you get the >>>> fundamentals around content tagging/meta data right. >>>> >>>> What are you specifically trying to achieve? That might guide the advice >>>> the list gives you. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> David Connors ([email protected]) >>>> Software Engineer >>>> Codify Pty Ltd - www.codify.com >>>> Phone: +61 (7) 3210 6268 | Facsimile: +61 (7) 3210 6269 | Mobile: +61 >>>> 417 189 363 >>>> V-Card: https://www.codify.com/cards/davidconnors >>>> Address Info: https://www.codify.com/contact >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
