topic Re: General discussion in Alfresco Archive

General discussion

jsauer — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:10:54 GMT

Hi,I just installed Alfresco Labs Stable 3.0.I used and implemented the previous version a lot and have authored acomprehensive end user training manual for one of my customers. CurrentlyI am reading Jeffs Potts book on Alfresco development.I do not want to state that I am an expert in Alfresco but

Re: General discussion

mikeh — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 19:01:05 GMT

Good points, but not something we're immediately going to address.

First of all, remember that Share is currently a V1.x product. It ships as part of Alfresco 3.0 but is still in it's infancy in terms of functionality.

Having said that, the main use case will be for people to use either one client or the other - not both at the same time. Hence the warning across the top of the JSF client when you access space under the Sites root space. Allowing people to be linked all over the Repository we think would prove confusing - how would you display the folder tree, breadcrumb, etc. when you jump out of a Share Site? I agree it would probably be useful to be able to link to documents throughout the Repository, but this is likely to be presented as "Virtual" documents within a Site.

Regarding the JSF client: whilst we're certainly not "end-of-life'ing" it, it's unlikely we'll port all the new Share functionality across, such as nested discussions in your example.

Thanks,
Mike

Re: General discussion

raf — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 19:12:31 GMT

Good discussion.

I have a follow-up based on the OP's question.

We have been using 2.1 for a year or so. We are now looking at upgrading to Alfresco 3 and moving our users to the Share interface. We are impressed with Share and think it represents a real step forward: more intuitive, much lower learning curve, many useful features. Therefore, we plan to implement it as the GUI for all of our users.

We have upgraded 2.1 to 3 on a test server. This moved everything: users, Spaces, content, etc. as expected. But now since the Share interface expects things to be organized under sites, I assume we need to move all of our content into a specific site (or sites?). Is this the correct approach to making all of the content available under Share?

If this is so, then we need to be able to move all of the existing user-generated content (and Spaces) into one or more Share "sites". Unlike the OP, we want to do this migration once and do not require that the content be available using the Explorer interface once we have migrated. Here are our (initial ) questions:

Thanks for any guidance,
Martin

Re: General discussion

hunter42 — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 10:23:08 GMT

Good discussion,

it reflects a question I posted as well some days ago. I was confused by the interoperability of Share and the Explorer interfaces as well. The statement of Mike makes it a a lot cleare to me, and I think our users would perfectly live with the Share client functionallity only. (Actually I like it a LOT more than the explorer interface.)

Is there any kind of SHARE-specific roadmap ?
Do you plan to include mail functionality (like I asked before). That would IMHO make the Share-solution the perfect solution for our organization.
What about auto-archiving functionality (so documents that pass a given date-line are archived away) ?
What about a ICQ-dashlet ?
What about generating my own tasks or my own calendar entries ?

Sorry for all the questions, but the current Share release looks very promising and I would really like to see more of this…

Michael