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: [email protected]; [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: [email protected]; [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 > > > > > > > > > >
