Have you used MS Content Management Server?
-
Has anyone had the displeasure of using MCCMS (Microsoft Content Management Server)? It is part of the new .NET family of servers but is actually a rebranded version of the NCompass Resolution content management product. It is great once you have it setup because then authors, publishers etc. can create content at will. However it is the setting up, creating templates and using the API which is a real pain in the ass. I am curious to hear other peoples opinions on the product, as well as whether you also find it confusing and highly inefficient. IMHO MS have simple taken NCompass Resolution, rebranded it and are probably right now frantically rewriting most of the product so that it actually works like other MS products and not some 3rd party solution. I hope ver2 is more in line with the .NET family. (Commerce Server 2000 is also like this, rebranded and not up to MS standards.) regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa "The greatest thing you will ever learn is to love, and be loved in return" - Moulin Rouge "In other words, the developer is dealing with an elephant, the accountant is dealing with a bunny rabbit." by Stan Shannon - 16/10/2001
-
Has anyone had the displeasure of using MCCMS (Microsoft Content Management Server)? It is part of the new .NET family of servers but is actually a rebranded version of the NCompass Resolution content management product. It is great once you have it setup because then authors, publishers etc. can create content at will. However it is the setting up, creating templates and using the API which is a real pain in the ass. I am curious to hear other peoples opinions on the product, as well as whether you also find it confusing and highly inefficient. IMHO MS have simple taken NCompass Resolution, rebranded it and are probably right now frantically rewriting most of the product so that it actually works like other MS products and not some 3rd party solution. I hope ver2 is more in line with the .NET family. (Commerce Server 2000 is also like this, rebranded and not up to MS standards.) regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa "The greatest thing you will ever learn is to love, and be loved in return" - Moulin Rouge "In other words, the developer is dealing with an elephant, the accountant is dealing with a bunny rabbit." by Stan Shannon - 16/10/2001
Paul, We have quite a few CMS projects rolling out here in Canada. I'm going to be doing one next month. Is there a specific area that you are having problems with? BTW... Have you seen the Commerce Server 2002 technology preview? I think you'll find it a little easier to work with. Cheers! Colin Bowern, Consultant Enterprise Platform Solutions Microsoft Services (Canada)
-
Paul, We have quite a few CMS projects rolling out here in Canada. I'm going to be doing one next month. Is there a specific area that you are having problems with? BTW... Have you seen the Commerce Server 2002 technology preview? I think you'll find it a little easier to work with. Cheers! Colin Bowern, Consultant Enterprise Platform Solutions Microsoft Services (Canada)
I am involved in the second CMS roll-out in the United Kingdom (dev back in South Africa). Our partner company is quite close to MS and so they have really evangalised CMS to us and their client. I don't want to disparage a MS product as I am normally impressed with them (VS.NET for instance is just stunning IMHO) but CMS to me feels strange and rather amateurish. Have you used the product much with a "real world" website? When I first used it I was happy with it. The samples were simple and easy to understand and I was impressed with the WYSIWIG editing of content. I still am. It is when you actually start to do more complex websites with include files, proprietry database calls etc. that things become confusing and rather arse-backwards. My main areas of confusion (which I am slowly getting my head around) are:
- using my own include files: Just found the Shared folder which helps a bit
- CMS's folder structure: CMS should really use a standard virtual directory off of the inetpub\wwwroot folder to remain consistent and integrate easily with Visual Studio and how us ASP coders think :) )
- Folders vs. Channels: Finally understanding it but seems cumbersome and inneficient
Also editing templates is a pain. You have to open Site Builder, right click the template and select Edit Template HTML. Then one edits the HTML and ASP code. Then you save, close the HTML editor, close design pallete and preview the template. If something is not quite right then you have to re-do that whole process. I also cannot see how CMS is going to work with ASP.NET files. Some other issues are: If you are selecting a template to import and you alt-tab to another app (leaving the Site Builder file selector dialog open) to copy a file or two and then try and alt-tab back to Site Builder you can't. You can see Site Builder but it does not respond and checking the alt-tab list shows no Site Builder. You have to End Task Site Builder and then re-open Site Builder. If you add a resource to the resource gallery it often takes about 5 Global Refreshes before it shows up in the Design Pallete. My main problem is that I am used to using Visual Studio and a normal IIS folder structure. CMS though does not follow any of the same standards or ideas. It is a great product once setup, no doubt about it. But setting it up, creating templates etc. is a mission. It does feel like a product that MS have simply bought and rebranded. Bottom line? It is a case of throwing the ASP manua