We have been using Yii for building web applications. Once in a while, themes comes to our discussion table.
But, if we have a web application and we wish to change the look and feel only, we may, as well, change the public_html folder, since the structure will be similar.
The only point we see on having themes is for those cases where we may want to dynamically (user choice by clicking on a "change layout button") change the look and feel of an application.
Does anyone uses themes for any other proposes, or configurations?
We use themes to great effect. We operate 6 sites using as single instance of a Yii application. The theme is then selected based on the domain name.
Yes we could have just used 6 different application folders and served them separately. This comes with several advantages though, which you've probably already dismissed if they're not relevant to you, but here they are:
Shared code, updates and maintenance are far easier
Adding a new theme is much cleaner IMO (just a new theme folder rather than a whole application directory)
Global assets, which are then overridden easily in the theme, rather than wiping over them completely, you'r expanding them.
Shared Cache, the whole application caches to a single directory, view cache, data cache etc.
Shared Assets directory, assets are only published once ( although this could in theory be set up in a copied environment)
I much prefer this set up, it looks far cleaner just to override rather than overwrite. Plus really, I can't think of a reason why copying the whole directory would be better than this method, yes there are issues in theming that have to be worked out, but copying the whole source doesn't solve them.
Related
When you have a server side blazor app and you reference a razor class library directly (at the moment I am using dotnet5) it seems to automatically add the /_content/.bundle.scp.css by adding an #import to the .styles.css. This appears to work well enough at least in debug just by adding the reference and hitting F5.
I see conflicting documentation adding the links manually in many places and they are generally being added in the head as links, not as an #import. I am guessing this is maybe something that has changed since core3. I also have not figured out where the bundled files are supposed to "live" while you are still developing, when you publish you end up with a \wwwroot_content folder, but a development that appears not to exist on the filesystem and actually be mapped onto the \obj folders of the individual RCLs.
In the app I am currently working on the razor class libraries are loaded at run time, so this does not work automatically, for the time being I have the bundles referenced as individual links programmatically added in the head of the _host.cshtml after I copy them from the individual RCLs' obj<BuildFolder>\net5.0\ as that seems to be the only place they exist on disk. I am also serving them with an app.UseStaticFiles out of another folder since I am still unclear on how the inbuilt folders are meant to operate.
When I first figured out that the runtime load was an issue I was able to get confirmation there was not inbuilt support beyond direct references here https://github.com/dotnet/aspnetcore/issues/33284 and I started looking for how to re-implement the existing work-around more properly.
I would prefer this to work as similar to a directly referenced RCL as possible, but I am not finding any information on if the bundles are meant to be referenced globally at all times or conditionally, I do not see any obvious way to get them to be added as an #import programmatically, and I have no idea what the implications of trying to manually create the _content folder from the bundle files found in the various \obj folders would be.
How this is really supposed to work in development and when publishing? Is what i am doing even close or is there some glaring issue I will be encountering down the road?
Not sure I'm using the right terminology, but if I have a website, and I make a change to one of the files, the underlying logic C#, whatever, do I have compile the whole application again before I deploy it?
How do I publish a small change?
You keep saying "the whole thing", but you don't really seem to understand what that means.
An MVC application is a Web Application project, which means that it's class files are compiled into an assembly. When you make a change to a class, the assembly that it's in must be recompiled (as well as any assemblies that are dependent upon it) and redeployed.
You don't have to recompile other assemblies that have not been changed, and you don't have to redeploy any unchanged files (like views or css or javascript).
If you have 100 pages, chances are, you probably going to split that up into several assemblies anyways. But even if you don't, it really doesn't take very long to compile even a 100 page web application (the pages themselves do not get compiled, it's only the .cs files). At most this should take 15-20 seconds on a medium powered workstation.
I think you're worrying about something that isn't really that big of a deal. You're probably more concerned about redeploying, but if you setup your publish system correctly, this is a single click, 10 second thing.
That depends on where you made the change.
If you made the change in a .cshtml or similar view file, or other content file (like javascript, css, images, etc.), just uploading the updated file will be sufficient.
If you changed a .cs (or vb, etc.) class however, you will need to recompile.
Under the section "Cascading Style Sheets" in M. Hartl's Rails 3 tutorial he mentions copying the CSS blueprint directory into the 'public/stylesheets' folder. My stylesheets folder resides within the assets directory. Is it reasonable to copy the blueprint directory into the 'assets/stylesheets' instead of the 'public/styleshets'? If not, what might be your suggestion? If so, are there any particular pitfalls of which you might suggest I be mindful?
He clearly suggested using Rails 3.0.1, though I am running 3.2.6. I should have followed his directions to the mark, but I had an almost impossible time getting the environment up and running on my Windows machine (MySQL conflicts, etc... ) and it just so happened that this version ended up working for me so I went with it.
Don't assume I know what I'm talking about, because I'm new to RoR, but I just spent the last few hours reading up on the asset pipeline after running into problems with it. I'll share a few things I've learned that might help you conceptualize:
Anything in public/ is left just the way it is, and server as static files directly by the web server. There are two points worth considering regarding public/ assets, though:
1) They don't get the benefits of precompiling, which include:
1a) fingerprinting - Appending an md5 hash based on file contents to the filename, so that the filename changes when the file changes, forcing caches to reload. This is useful if the file might change some day (a new version of blueprint, in your case).
1b) concatenation - The precompiler can/will combine multiple CSS or JS files into one, which makes the download faster. (Exactly what files get compiled and into how many is configurable.)
1c) minification - The precompiler removes whitespace (and other clever optimizations) to shrink down the size of your CSS/JS files.
2) I'm still trying to figure this part out, but whether something is in /app/assets and goes through precompile affects whether and how helper methods work (things like asset_tag, image_tag, and javascript_include tag, which you use in your views).
Even though I'm totally unqualified, I'm seriously considering starting my own Rails Assets Best Practices page on a wiki somewhere to start organize my thoughts. I think it's sorely lacking - I've had to dredge bits of knowledge from many places, and some of what people are suggesting I find objectionable (like modifying config files to precompile add unmanifested assets).
I have copied my stylesheet files to app/assets folder and it worked normally
I'm new to MODx, but am quite impressed with its power and flexibility. There's only one caveat, and I'm hoping it's just because I don't know any better.
I'm a frontend dev, and I'm used to building websites of all sizes. But I usually work with files and version control. How would I keep this paradigm with MODx?
From my poking around so far, the only way I found to use an IDE, is to keep static files with my code, to later on copy/paste into MODx Manager. Far from ideal.
I'm aware that a lot of people use an "include" snippet, to include snippets, chunks, etc. Does this work for MODx specific tags? For example, if I include a file as a snippet, and I have a template variable defined in there (or a resource link), would that be properly rendered?
Also, is there a performance hit using a snippet by including a file, vs having the snippet code entered into MODx Manager?
Bottom line, how do you develop sites on MODx? Where do you enter your code? Is there a feature like the "Import HTML" but for snippets and chunks? Is there a way to create new Templates, Documents, Chunks, TVs, etc. without going through the Manager?
Thanks in advance!
there is a whole documentation site for developing in modx, http://rtfm.modx.com/display/revolution20/Home - though it mostly concerns extending it - not customization & modification. The short answer is no, there is no version control for your snippets & such, yes, you will have to maintain them manually. [I wish that was not the case]
Most of your php code will go into either a snippet or a plugin, and yes you can include static files in either of those resource types, no, I on't know if there is a performance gain/loss, but I would imagine "no" if your include is cache-able.
for the includes you can do something like this:
include_once $modx->config['base_path'].'_path_to_my.php_';
-sean
There is VersionX for revolution that will allow you version control of chunks, snippets, resources and so on.
There is package called Auditor that will allow you to implement version control in Modx
EDIT
Sorry just noticed your question is tagged Revolution, Auditor is for Evo. I don't think there's a solution available yet although I believe it is on the Roadmap
I am still struggling to find a good naming convention for assets like images, js and css files used in my web projects.
So, my current would be:
CSS: style-{name}.css
examples: style-main.css, style-no_flash.css, style-print.css etc.
JS:
script-{name}.js
examples: script-main.js, script-nav.js etc.
Images: {imageType}-{name}.{imageExtension}
{imageType} is any of these
icon (e. g. question mark icon for help content)
img (e. g. a header image inserted via <img /> element)
button (e. g. a graphical submit button)
bg (image is used as a background image in css)
sprite (image is used as a background image in css and contains multiple "versions")
Example-names would be: icon-help.gif, img-logo.gif, sprite-main_headlines.jpg, bg-gradient.gif etc.
So, what do you think and what is your naming convention?
I've noticed a lot of frontend developers are moving away from css and js in favor of styles and scripts because there is generally other stuff in there, such as .less, .styl, and .sass as well as, for some, .coffee. Fact is, using specific technology selections in your choice of folder organization is a bad idea even if everyone does it. I'll continue to use the standard I see from these highly respected developers:
src/html
src/images
src/styles
src/styles/fonts
src/scripts
And their destination build equivalents, which are sometimes prefixed with dest depending on what they are building:
./
images
styles
styles/fonts
scripts
This allows those that want to put all files together (rather than breaking out a src directory) to keep that and keeps things clearly associated for those that do break out.
I actually go a bit futher and add
scripts/before
scripts/after
Which get smooshed into two main-before.min.js and main-after.min.js scripts, one for the header (with essential elements of normalize and modernizr that have to run early, for example) and after for last thing in the body since that javascript can wait. These are not intended for reading, much like Google's main page.
If there are scripts and style sheets that make sense to minify and leave linked alone because of a particular cache management approach that is taken care of in the build rules.
These days, if you are not using a build process of some kind, like gulp or grunt, you likely are not reaching most of the mobile-centric performance goals you should probably be considering.
I place CSS files in a folder css, Javascript in js, images in images, ... Add subfolders as you see fit. No need for any naming convention on the level of individual files.
/Assets/
/Css
/Images
/Javascript (or Script)
/Minified
/Source
Is the best structure I've seen and the one I prefer. With folders you don't really need to prefix your CSS etc. with descriptive names.
For large sites where css might define a lot of background images, a file naming convention for those assets comes in really handy for making changes later on.
For example:
[component].[function-description].[filetype]
footer.bkg-image.png
footer.copyright-gradient.png
We have also discussed adding in the element type, but im not sure how helpful that is and could possibly be misleading for future required changes:
[component].[element]-[function-description].[filetype]
footer.div-bkg-image.png
footer.p-copyright-gradient.png
You can name it like this:
/assets/css/ - For CSS files
/assets/font/ - For Font files. (Mostly you can just go to google fonts to search for usable fonts.)
/assets/images/ - For Images files.
/assets/scripts/ or /assets/js/ - For JavaScript files.
/assets/media/ - For video and misc. files.
You can also replace "assets" with "resource" or "files" folder name and keep the name of it's subfolders. Well having an order folder structure like this isn't very important the only important is you just have to arrange your files by it's format. like creating a folder "/css/" for CSS files or "/images/" for Image files.
First, I divide into folders: css, js, img.
Within css and js, I prefix files with the project name because your site may include js and css files which are components, this makes it clear where files are specific for your site, or relating to plugins.
css/mysite.main.css css/mysite.main.js
Other files might be like
js/jquery-1.6.1.js
js/jquery.validate.js
Finally images are divided by their use.
img/btn/submit.png a button
img/lgo/mysite-logo.png a logo
img/bkg/header.gif a background
img/dcl/top-left-widget.jpg a decal element
img/con/portait-of-something.jpg a content image
It's important to keep images organized since there can be over 100 and can easily get totally mixed together and confusingly-named.
I tend to avoid anything generic, such as what smdrager suggested. "mysite.main.css" doesn't mean anything at all.
What is "mysite"?? This one I'm working on? If so then obvious really, but it already has me thinking what it might be and if it is this obvious!
What is "Main"? The word "Main" has no definition outside the coders knowledge of what is within that css file.
While ok in certain scenarios, avoid names like "top" or "left" too: "top-nav.css" or "top-main-logo.png".
You might end up wanting to use the same thing elsewhere, and putting an image in a footer or within the main page content called "top-banner.png" is very confusing!
I don't see any issue with having a good number of stylesheets to allow for a decent naming convention to portray what css is within the given file.
How many depends entirely on the size of the site and what it's function(s) are, and how many different blocks are on the site.
I don't think you need to state "CSS" or "STYLE" in the css filenames at all, as the fact it's in "css" or "styles" folder and has an extension of .css and mainly as these files are only ever called in the <head> area, I know pretty clearly what they are.
That said, I do this with library, JS and config (etc) files. eg libSomeLibrary.php, or JSSomeScript.php. As PHP and JS files are included or used in various areas within other files, and having info of what the file's main purpose is within the name is useful.
eg: Seeing the filename require('libContactFormValidation.php'); is useful. I know it's a library file (lib) and from the name what it does.
For image folders, I usually have images/content-images/ and images/style-images/. I don't think there needs to be any further separation, but again it depends on the project.
Then each image will be named accordingly to what it is, and again I don't think there's any need for defining the file is an image within the file name. Sizes can be useful, especially for when images have different sizes.
site-logo-150x150.png
site-logo-35x35.png
shop-checkout-button-40x40.png
shop-remove-item-20x20.png
etc
A good rule to follow is: if a new developer came to the files, would they sit scratching their head for hours, or would they likely understand what things do and only need a little time researching (which is unavoidable)?
As anything like this, however, one of the most important rules to follow is simply constancy!
Make sure you follow the same logic and patterns thoughout all your naming conventions!
From simple css file names, to PHP library files to database table and column names.
This is an old question, but still valid.
My current recommendation is to go with something in this lines:
assets (or assets-web or assets-www); this one is intended for static content used by the client (browser)
data; some xml files and other stuff
fonts
images
media
styles
scripts
lib (or 3rd-party); this one is intended for code you don't make or modify, the libraries as you get them
lib-modded (or 3rd-party-modified); this one is intended for code you weren't expected to modify, but had to, like applying a workaround/fix in the meantime the library provider releases it
inc (or assets-server or assets-local); this one is intended for content used server side, not to be used by the client, like libraries in languages like PHP or server scripts, like bash files
fonts
lib
lib-modded
I marked in bold the usual ones, the others are not usual content.
The reason for the main division, is in the future you can decide to server the web assets from a CDN or restrict client access to server assets, for security reasons.
Inside the lib directories i use to be descriptive about the libraries, for example
lib
jquery.com
jQuery
vX.Y.Z
github
[path]
[library/project name]
vX.Y.Z (version)
so you can replace the library with a new one, without breaking the code, also allowing future code maintainers, including yourself, to find the library and update it or get support.
Also, feel free to organize the content inside according to its usage, so images/logos and images/icons are expected directories in some projects.
As a side note, the assets name is meaningful, not only meaning we have resources in there, but meaning the resources in there must be of value for the project and not dead weight.
The BBC have tons of standards relating web development.
Their standard is fairly simple for CSS files:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/futuremedia/technical/css.shtml
You might be able to find something useful on their main site:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/futuremedia/