Dave Burke : Freelance .NET Web Developer specializing in Online Communities

Community Server First Impressions. The Jury is still out.

I was obviously excited when Rob Howard announced the availability of CS 1.0 source a couple of days ago. Like a lot of people, I have been waiting for that day to come for a long time.  Yesterday, Saturday, was Community Server Day for me with my girls off to Boston for the weekend, leaving me "alone with my work." Besides taking a couple of breaks to walk the dogs, stack some wood and re-watch last season's final episode of Deadwood, I was heads-down, balls-to-the-wall focused on setting up Community Server and migrating my blog and photo gallery from dotText and nGallery to CS from early morning until crash time.

Fourteen hours of CS nerding under my belt and I have to say that I am quite happy with dotText 0.95 and nGallery, thank you very much. Surprisingly, I just don't know if Community Server is in my future. 

Okay, what's my beef then? No beef, really. Howard, Watermasysk, and the other Telligent .NET noteables have designed an application on which they are going to build a business, and I hope it will be a big success for them. They're thinking of their future, not their past, nor, I think, are they thinking about the geeks and soccer moms out there who happened to stumble onto their dotText, ASP.NET Forums, and nGallery efforts along the way. Community Server is a brand new commercially-focused product and designed for people to start anew with CS 1.0.

Here's a screenshot of my blog migrated to Community Server on my office network. I tried using McLaws' CSverter in several configurations and it hung like my Uncle Charlie at 7.8% of the way in. Forget it. From the comments I've seen its one of those things that works for maybe 2 out of 10 people who use it. This tells us a couple of things but one thing for sure: migrating from dotText to CS 1.0 is a bitch. Not a priority for anyone involved in CS development, from all appearances thus far.  After downloading my dotText and nGallery SQL databases from my provider, I migrated all posts, comments, and trackbacks. I stopped before getting to categories, views and aggregated counts, but I migrated enough to tell me what I needed to know to make a decision about CS. I used SQL scripting alone to migrate the essentials. Allowed null values in cs_posts ThreadID and ParentID fields, added an INT DotTextID field, and went from there.

I implemented the CS singlesite config and disabled forums, but CS took over my site anyway rather than functioning as a distinct application.  I don't know how I feel about that.  But the deal breaker was probably CS::Galleries, which doesn't support two key features that were in nGallery: 1) The ability to upload multiple photos, for starters.  Say what????  And 2) in CS::Galleries you have two choices of where to store images: in a database in binary format or in file storage using XML data access.  What happened to using SQL for image data and storing the images as files like my current nGallery configuration?  Maybe that option will be available to paying customers only?  Either way, someone brain farted on the way to Damascus on CS Galleries 1.0. So I decided to keep my old nGallery app and run it on the same site as CS. But that's just weird, makes things unnecessarily complicated, and seems to be something CS doesn't like, as it wants to muscle in on my nGallery application directory.   I posted to CS::Forums and received a quick reply from Ken, but its an answer I don't like and doesn't increase my CS warm fuzzy count.

dotText will probably be in my future for a lot longer than I was anticipating.  It's going to be interesting to see what happens in the dotText Mod Community with CS source now available. I wonder how many fellow dotText developers will come to the same conclusions as I did, that Community Server is just not for them?  Or will most say I'm full of crap and migrate to CS en masse?  We'll see.

It's still very early, of course. I mean, the source has only been available for a couple of days. CSVerter notwithstanding there are really NO migration tools available out there. First impressions are still coming in. My first impressions, right or wrong, are now officially recorded here...in dotText 0.95.


Walked on a frozen Shelburne Bay today to check out what the ice fishermen were up to.

Picture: IMG05022701.jpg Picture: IMG05022702.jpg Picture: IMG05022705.jpg Picture: IMG05022707.jpg Picture: IMG05022708.jpg

 

Comments (8) | Post RSS RSS comment feed

Posted on 2/27/2005 6:55:00 PM by Dave Burke
Categories: Community Server
Tags: no tags for this post

Related posts

Comments (8) -

2/27/2005 10:58:00 PM Permalink

Wow.   Anything wrong with CS blogs and forums, or just the migration?

Tim Haines |

2/27/2005 11:08:00 PM Permalink

Hey, Tim!  Galleries, in my opinion, is not useable without bulk upload and not being able to store photo metadata in SQL and the photos as files like nGallery.  I mean, its all about integration, and while its possible to integrate SQL blogs and XML photo info, who wants to do that?

As for anything wrong with blogs and forums.  No.  Weird little bugs that drive me nuts, like look at Ken Robertson's blog (Telligent employee) running CS 1.0 and the comments.  Everyone is "anonymous" because that's the Member name, easily fixable.  I thought I screwed something up in my SQL migration hack, but its just an obvious oversight.  But no, nothing wrong with them at all.  Configuration issues, with a root directory and multiple subdirectories.  Httphandler takes over the entire domain, so you can't have a non-CS subdirectory without some major pain, my initial impression to the CS::Forums post.  Link's in my post.

Lots of pluses, lots of good stuff.  I'm looking forward to what my friends like you will be doing with it and what your impressions might be.  I hope they're 100% positive!

Dave Burke |

2/28/2005 8:58:00 AM Permalink

Dave,

We're deep into this as well, and were one of the 8/10 people that can't get the migration tool to work.  I've poked around a bit at the CS tables, and was thinking that the SQL to move stuff over would look pretty ugly.  So, you managed to move your blogs successfully?  Did you end up with any SQL scripts that you could share?

Thanks!

Brendan

Brendan Tompkins |

2/28/2005 9:00:00 AM Permalink

I realize that you didn' t get 100%, but from what I could tell, just getting posts and comments is an accomplishment!

Brendan

Brendan Tompkins |

3/1/2005 11:33:00 PM Permalink

Hey Dave!

I definitely feel your pain. You know that many of those features were long awaited in nGallery, but it actually took a few versions to get Bulk Upload added (and even then it was less then stellar).

Have no fear, though. These are definitely features that are on our radar. Unfortunately, I'm sure you can appreciate, we have to draw a line in the sand somewhere. Otherwise we could have been working on CS 1.0 indefinitely. Wink

But, please, don't worry -- while we are trying to build a business with it, we also want to make sure we stay tied to our roots (thus the source release, and truly opening up the source to public commits RSN).

All of this feedback is *wonderful* and essential. I have forwarded it on to the CS guys and making sure we put it on "The Big List o' Features" and prioritize.

It all takes time though, as you know, and the CS momentum is just now really beginning to build. Give us a few, keep an eye out and I think you'll be really happy with the direction and where we end up. Smile


Warmest regards,
-Jason Alexander
Chief Architect, Telligent Systems

Jason Alexander |

3/4/2005 12:11:00 PM Permalink

David,

Sorry to see that you are disappointed by CS, and namely by CS:Gallery.  I would like to clear up, and hopefully have you re-look at it a little.

Bulk Upload:

While there is no web-based, built in bulk upload tool at this time, we have been working on an FTP server that integrates with Community Server.  We released the beta1 version just this morning (www.communityserver.org/.../ShowPost.aspx">www.communityserver.org/.../ShowPost.aspx).  We realize not everybody will be able to install and run a Windows service, so we are not abandoning a web-based uploader.  We marely came up with the idea for an FTP server, thought it would be cool, and I began screwing around with it in my free time.

As Jason said, we put off the bulk upload due to time.  Bulk upload was something that we felt needed to be done right the first time, rather than take a few bad releases to get it ok.  In nGallery, it took a few releases to get it "stable", but even then, it was one of the most common source of problems.  Primarily because it wasn't incredibly intuitive.  You had to first get the pictures on the server, and put them in the right place, and so on.  In Community Server, we plan on writing a rich interface and web services with multiple avenues for bulk uploading:

1) FTP Server
2) Rich web-based UI, most likely WinForms based and upload using the webservice
3) Plugins for different home photo album application which use webservices
4) Make our webservices compatible with the webservice in FotoVision, so you can use it to publish photos
5) Use the XP Publishing feature, where you can select the photos and click "Publish to the Web".

In our next release, we plan on having the webservice available, which will hopefully please a lot of people.

Photo Storage:

I'm not sure what gave you the impression the two options for storing photos were in the DB or using XML data access.  There is no XML data access.  Pictures are either stored in the database or on the filesystem.  The way CS:G stored the metadata and the picture itself is basically the same as nGallery, though it goes even further and is quite better.  In nGallery, it didn't cache EXIF data, so when viewing a picture, it retrieved it each time.  CS:G caches the EXIF metadata in the DB in the cs_PostMetadata table.   Even better, CS:G can use it to sort your photos based on the EXIF picture date.  It does this by default.

The default setup for CS:G is to store the pictures on the filesystem.  On top of nGallery, this storage point is dynamic, as it can be outside the webspace, on another drive, or even on another computer, as it supports UNC shares.  The filenames may look funky, but they did in nGallery too.  nGallery created a folder for the albumID and then stored all the pictures in that folder named on the pictureID.  In CS:G, it keeps everything in one folder, and the filename is 3 numbers, separate by a period, so "1000.6.234".  The three numbers are the settingsID, sectionID, and postID.  This allows to quickly pull up the file without much effort.  If you renamed one of those files to .jpg and double clicked on it, it would open up.  It is your file, exactly as CS got it.

CS:G is rather dynamic in its storage too, in that you can regularly switch between storing in the DB or on the filesystem, and all the pictures will continue to work, regardless of where they are stored.

For a detailed description of how pictures are stored and where data is, see www.communityserver.org/.../ShowPost.aspx">www.communityserver.org/.../ShowPost.aspx.

I hope you don't completely abandon hope and you will still around and try future versions.  While we hate to see people say they don't want to use our software (as a developer, you want everyone to!), however often the best feedback is critical feedback.  We like hearing what people like, but hearing what they don't like tells us what things we need to focus on to build a better product.

Thanks,
  Ken Robertson
  Telligent Systems, Software Developer

Ken Robertson |

3/4/2005 12:28:00 PM Permalink

Ken, I hope you've seen subsequent posts where I correct my initial misconception about CS:G storage and talk about CS in a more positive light.  Perhaps ongoing information on CS emanating from this blog will compensate for any initial observations.  Your work on CS:Forums has been invaluable.  I hope you saw the post where I copy-n-pasted your response on the CS:G storage schema.  I will reference your comments here as I continue to investigate CS, which I am definitely going to do (right after the Code Camp talk I'm giving next weekend on Customizing dotText! Smile

btw, I really do like the 1000.6.234 image storage logic.  Yes, I added a .jpg several nights ago to one of the files to confirm it was a photo.

As for the either/or binary/xml conclusion, that's from being an early fan of nGallery and working through the XML data storage logic (which was brilliant, just not what I wanted for integration purposes.)  There has also been a lot of talk about storing images in binary form in the database on CS:F, which NEVER made any sense to me but didn't see clear evidence that this indeed was not the architecture of CS:G.  Now with the source in my possession I can start clearing these things up and get down to business.


Thanks again.

Dave Burke |


Powered by BlogEngine.NET 2.0.0.36
Theme by Dave Burke