Hi Richard, Sorry if I wasn't clear. I know we do have a unique set up here, not 100% sure how it came about, but we are really only using Red Dot as an editing platform (plus workflow and authorisations and WYSIWYG) and not as a system to produce the site code or files.
We have asked the same question, why are we using Red Dot and the answer seems to boil down to, someone else paid for it, now we have to use it. The instructions we got when intergrating it were something like - we want to be able to edit x, y and z in Red Dot, but A, B and C elsewhere and parts one and two of X and Y will also need to be edited elsewhere. So we have a bit of a mix and match solution, all based around databases. We have used the Rusty Logic framework and the services exposed by Red Dot itself to get the data in and our own WCF services to get it out, in hindsight maybe this was a mistake. I think it came about this way because we all know C# .Net, but were all new to Red Dot, with only one person having been on the admin course a couple of years ago, but never developed a site from scratch. Thank you for your help and suggestions, it will give us something to think about for future developments of the publishing process, again sorry if I asked the wrong questions and was not clear. Rich On Jul 5, 4:28 pm, "Richard Hauer (5 Limes)" <[email protected]> wrote: > Here's the thing - you asked for alternative options and presented > your problem as getting HTML placeholder data into c# fields withouut > using render tags. > Best I can make of it there was not mention of data access layers, > business layers or publishing processes. Also, if "no files that are > generated by RedDot are used in the site" then where are they used? > And why do you have RedDot? And why are you posting to this forum? I > don't really see how my suggestion will break your data access layer, > but for what its worth I believe you. > > I guess I have completely misunderstood the problem, and since I've > read the thread through several times now I'm giving up. > > If you want more specific advice, I can only suggest posting a more > specific query. > > STDH. > (noob: sorry that didn't help) > > Regards, > Richard Hauer > ==================== > 5 Limes Pty Limitedwww.5Limes.com.au > > On Jul 5, 7:06 pm, reddotrich <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Hi Richard, > > > Thanks for the advice, but that would mean re-writing our data access > > layer and Business layer as well as our website layer and changing the > > publishing process, which may all happen in the long run, but at the > > moment all we need is to make it more optimised by removing the > > potential conflict in the template by getting rid of the render tag in > > the pre-execute. The Website is really very divorced from Red Dot, no > > files that are generated by Red Dot are used in the site. > > > Rich. > > > On Jul 3, 6:46 am, "Richard Hauer (5 Limes)" <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > I haven't tried it but just as a thought, what if you moved the > > > processing from pre-execute to the main web site's code-behind. I > > > presume you're publishing ASPX and not HTML. > > > > What I mean is you could pu the following into your template... > > > > <asp:XmlDataSource runat="server" id="myXml"> > > > <Data><Root><![CDATA[<%txt_RedDot_Placeholder%>]]></Root></Data> > > > </asp:XmlDataSource> > > > > Then in your code behind, or in-line somewhere else in the file, you > > > can get the value of the field by... > > > > XmlDocument xdoc = new XmlDocument(); > > > xdoc.LoadXml( myXml.Data ); > > > > string myString = > > > ((XmlCDataSection)xdoc.DocumentElement.FirstChild).Data; > > > > Then you can manipulate it as you see fit. > > > > HTH. > > > > Regards, > > > Richard Hauer > > > ==================== > > > 5 Limes Pty Limitedwww.5Limes.com.au > > > > reddotrich wrote: > > > > Hi Tony, > > > > > Thanks for your advice, we did start down the road of xml files, > > > > partly to try and stay within the Red Dot publishing methodology, but > > > > switched to WCF as a more on demand solution and a more direct route > > > > into the rest of our publishing structure. The reason we want to > > > > remove the render tag was because we have been advised it may improve > > > > the efficency of our publishing. At this point it was meant to be > > > > only a quick refinment rather than a re-work of the publishing > > > > process. > > > > > Cheers > > > > > Rich. > > > > > On Jun 29, 10:29 am, Tony Gayter <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Why don t you make the templates in reddot ouput the data from reddot > > > > > into > > > > > xml files and then you can remove all c# preexecute from teh cms and > > > > > you > > > > > could then have teh c# fully in visual studio with full dubugging? > > > > > > We use this method by outputting the static pages for the site and > > > > > also > > > > > outputting the data as xml so that c# can read this data and use it > > > > > elsewhere for things like paginated/filtered lists etc.... > > > > > > In some cases we mix both and output an xml datasource into the > > > > > published > > > > > page so its not two seperate files. > > > > > > On 29 June 2010 09:00, reddotrich <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > We are putting it in a c# object in order to get it out of Red Dot. > > > > > > Our website is run off a db and uses objects to pass the data > > > > > > around. > > > > > > The most important reason is that only part of the site is edited in > > > > > > Red Dot, so we need to combine the data from Red Dot with the data > > > > > > from the other sources that is already in the database, as we are > > > > > > all > > > > > > ASP.Net C# programmers, the easiest thing to do seemed a WCF > > > > > > service. > > > > > > We do not use the files that Red Dot publishes to build our site at > > > > > > all, we just use the data. We do realise that we are breaking the > > > > > > classic CMS publishing model that Red Dot is based on, but it seemed > > > > > > like the best solution at the time given our knowledge base and time > > > > > > constraints, but we are open to suggestions. > > > > > > > Rich > > > > > > > On Jun 28, 8:44 pm, TonyGayter <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Understanding why you have to write this out into c# in the first > > > > > > > plac > > > > > > > would > > > > > > > be the first question I would ask. > > > > > > > > On Jun 28, 4:49 pm, reddotrich <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > All, > > > > > > > > > I have been looking at simplifying my templates recently, in > > > > > > > > order to > > > > > > > > attempt to streamline our publish. It has been recommended > > > > > > > > that we > > > > > > > > take out the render tags from our pre-execute code, however I am > > > > > > > > struggling to find an alternative option. > > > > > > > > > We get our data out of Red Dot by adding it to c# objects in > > > > > > > > pre- > > > > > > > > execute code blocks, however the text editor fields do not play > > > > > > > > nice > > > > > > > > with c# strings, so we used the Escape:HtmlEncode render tag to > > > > > > > > get > > > > > > > > round this as it returns text that we can place in a string. > > > > > > > > > I have looked at the htmlConvertTable as an option, but this > > > > > > > > happens > > > > > > > > too late in the page life cycle, so would be applied to the > > > > > > > > field > > > > > > > > after our pre-execute code. Does anyone have any suggestions? > > > > > > > > > extract from one of our templates from within a pre-execute > > > > > > > > block > > > > > > > > blog.Description = @"<%!! > > > > > > > Escape:HtmlEncode(Context:CurrentPage.Elements.GetElement(String:txt_BlogText).Value) > > > > > > !! > > > > > > > > %>"; > > > > > > > > > Rich- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > > > > > Groups > > > > > > "RedDot CMS Users" group. > > > > > > To post to this group, send email to > > > > > > [email protected]. > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > > > > [email protected]<reddot-cms-users%2bunsubscrib[email protected]> > > > > > > . > > > > > > For more options, visit this group at > > > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/reddot-cms-users?hl=en.-Hidequotedtext > > > > > > - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RedDot CMS Users" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/reddot-cms-users?hl=en.
