Alfresco Community 3.0 Dev Edition

[useeliger]

Hi,

I just downloaded and installed (from nightly builds) the 3.0 Dev edition - but I am disappointed. I thought version 3.0 will get the new user interface which was presented for example in Barcelona some month ago.

They also spoke about some nice new features - like multi-select - I can't find them.

[klaas]

It's a pity when there will be two separated interfaces. Even more if you will use to different stores.

Actually, we're currently having a re-think on this exact area. Although there are many advantages to using a new store for v3.0 we recognise that people will still use both clients. With these kind of decisions, there's always a compromise between pushing forward technically and backwards compatibility - it's impossible to please everyone.

This will mean we can' t use the slingshot version.

Is there a specific reason why this would be the case?


Additionally, it's important to realise that we're not covering 100% of the existing web client functionality in v3.0. Obviously this will come with time, but realistically this is just not possible. We also recognise that people are comfortable and experienced in customising the existing web client - and have existing custom installations rolled-out and live. It would be impossible to support all customisations with the Slingshot client, so the v2.x UI will exist for some time yet.

Finally, I should add that it will be much easier to add new functionality to the v3.0 client. Web Scripts have a much shallower learning curve than JSF, and the frameworks (server and client) should be easy to learn for competent Freemarker and JavaScript developers.

Don't get me wrong, I think Alfresco has great ideas and makes a great product. But I work in an organization where not is convinced of this 😉 (and I I'm not looking at the IT departement that runs a really expensive Documentum platform ;-))

I really like the idea's in Alfresco 3.0  (interface that is independent of the repository, better collaboration support with wiki, calendar,…) and I understand that the preview versions are not a finished product. But I just want to express mine concerns with the new 3.0 version (that's the positive side of open source, I think)

But if the documents in the Webclient (and the other information) aren't available in the slingshot interface (and vice versa), than I have a problem, because it isn't user friendly. We don't want to make a customized interface. We want to use an interface out-of-the-box.

The reason why we couldn't use the slingshot interface is because we use a folder structure (I mean like in the Windows Explorer interface) and the slingshot interface doesn't have such a overall folder structure (It is obviously like sharepoint. BTW: making a folder structure in the document library doesn't count). If the information stored in the slingshot interface isn't available to users of the webclient, then it isn't usable for me. I would like to see that the slingshot interface replace the projects special folder. That this won't be available in the first release isn't a problem. You're working hard building Alfresco into a great product, but it seems to me like Alfresco is going away from document management. While I was hoping that Alfresco 3.0 would be document management with extra collaboration features (but I would be happy if you' would tell me that I'm wrong ;-))

Klaas

[chen_shaopeng]

Come on, by "incompatible", everyone here (especially for me) means that if we have a 2.x rolled out, there's no way we can suddenly switch to slingshot and still access our spaces, with all the rules, workflows, webscripts, etc, just like before, isn't this right? Not with a whole lot of re-coding, I guess.

Thanks, that's what we meant by "incompatible". For people who have deployed 2.x, there doesn't seem to have any migration path to 3.x with the new interface. Even if we are willing to re-invest in the new interface, how are we going to work the existing spaces, without asking end users to switch back and forth between web client and slingshot?

You're working hard building Alfresco into a great product, but it seems to me like Alfresco is going away from document management. While I was hoping that Alfresco 3.0 would be document management with extra collaboration features (but I would be happy if you' would tell me that I'm wrong ;-))

Same feeling here.

[jeffgus]

You're working hard building Alfresco into a great product, but it seems to me like Alfresco is going away from document management. While I was hoping that Alfresco 3.0 would be document management with extra collaboration features (but I would be happy if you' would tell me that I'm wrong ;-))

Same feeling here.

As others have noted, the 3.0 interface has lots of stuff missing.  I can't imagine that Alfresco would stray too far from document management.  It just that the 3.0 interface has so many things that are missing – but what it does have is what it needs to compete with some of the other options out there.  I hope it doesn't mess up the Office integration.

I would think they would *have* to have things like workflow in the 'site oriented' interface before they cut an enterprise release.  That feature is still missing from the community version and I just did a 'svn update' and rebuilt from source.

So far I have not found software that balances web dynamic content (e.g. wiki) and serious document management.  Alfresco comes the closest so far.  There is something to be said for simple web accessible documents that can be interlinked, but how do you combine this with good document management?  I'm betting that Alfresco will beat out the competition in doing this in a seamless way.

[joechavez]

1. Is it worth deploying a 2.1 or 2.9 Alfresco installation, getting everyone used to the system, creating documentation for training, scheduling time from other departments, ordering hardware, creating spaces / rules / permissions /customisations, all with software that is a dead end.

Since you haven't deployed yet, I would recommend you wait until this issue settle down, if you can wait until a usable version of v3.0 comes out, and when it comes out is still a big question mark, given the current state.

We had deployed an enterprise version server in one department, and were planning to deploy more in other departments. But in the light of current issue, we have put on hold all deployments for now.

If you think v3.0 is more in line with what you want, bully you. We found it to be non-optimal. And we don't quite understand why moving away from a very standard web technology framework which everyone can leverage from a large pool of talents (inside and outside)? And with the slingshot client, we would have to re-train a lot of our developers. We have spent so much time and money training our developers on v2.x, and in less than a year, that whole web client is pretty much an abandonware.

Feeling pissed off is the way, as you can see.

[mabayona]

As far as I know, 3.0 will have two clients:

- classic 2.X JSF based for standard users
- new 3.0 with a REST JS based I/F for "knowledge workers"

so both web clients are there. The problems though are:

1) It seems that 2.X and 3.0 could not access same repository, therefore no easy coexistence and/or gradual migration (Alfresco is still thinking about  this point)
2) Not available plans, features and release dates

An optimal alternative could be:

a) 2.X and 3.0 have access to same repository (or some "replication mechanism" in case this is not possible)
b) 2.X enhancement to allow seamless integration of JSF and JS-REST based interfaces (i.e. freemarker templates or HTML-based components inside JSF components. Now this option is not functional although there are some contributed code that allows it)

This way, both old users and new ones could deploy 3.0 and allow a coexistence/migration/merge of both interfaces. With an easy migration path for both kind of users (this together with some other alternative clients like flexspaces or DoCASU)

Any comments from Alfresco?

[mikeh]

Any comments from Alfresco?

Storage for v3.0 has been swapped to the "main" repository - i.e. workspace://SpacesStore for those familiar with the terminology.

You're correct - the Alfresco Share "v3.0" client is very much aimed at "getting stuff done", being far more user-friendly including back button, bookmarkable URLs, customisation, extension through webscripts (i.e. JavaScript and Freemarker rather than the far steeper learning curve that JSF entails).

The JSF client is still shipped, maintained and supported as part of v3.0. Those developers and end users who prefer the "v2.x" technology and UI should use that client instead.

Mike

[klaas]

Hello,

Sorry I keep hitting the same nail over and over, but this is really important for me.

I don't care about the new interface vs the old interface, but I care about document management. What my question really is, will version 3 (and then I mean the new share interface) support document management? Are you going to implement better document management support in Alfresco Share? Or are you going away from document management to collaboration. Or to say it with products, it looks like Alfresco is going from Documentum to Sharepoint, but I was hoping (and still hope) Alfresco is becoming Documentum + Sharepoint (so does Alfresco Share support document management, and the document library that is in Alfresco slingshot releases is not enough. That is not document management). Because that is what I need. If you are going from document management to collaboration can you give a roadmap, when you are dropping support for document management. So I know when I start the migration process to a new system.

[jpfi]

hi klaas,
what's your definition of document management? Are you able to privide a little bullet list of features which match your definition.
I think such a list would make an answer easier.
Cheers, jan

[jeffgus]

hi klaas,
what's your definition of document management? Are you able to privide a little bullet list of features which match your definition.
I think such a list would make an answer easier.
Cheers, jan

It seems you are competing against your own product right now.  For example, the Share interface is missing functions for attaching a workflow or tasks to a document.  I can't imagine, given the foundation of Alfresco, that this feature set would go missing forever.  Or I should say, that I hope it doesn't go missing.  It seems people are worried that these features have yet to make an appearance in the Share interface.  I do like the team oriented Share interface, but it still needs the hooks into Alfresco's power.  I have been following the SVN tree and I've been seeing the Share interface work moving at a very fast clip.  Watching the development exposes how easy it is to build out a new interface in Alfresco.

At the same time, if the goal is for the Share interface to compete with SharePoint, it needs the ability to sync Events and Contacts into Outlook.  I recently saw a demo for creating Contact objects in Alfresco, maybe this needs to be added to the base system.  As a Microsoft ActionPack subscriber, I recently upgraded to SP3.0 and people love the web based shared calendar that is associated with the team.  It makes meeting requests easier to schedule when you can align them with project goal dates, etc.  The problem is, once we outgrow the ActionPack license, SharePoint Server gets really, really expensive.

The solution, of course, is to cover it all, but it simply takes time to build out all the functionality.  Sometimes it is hard to be patient – but considering how fast the work is progressing on Alfresco, I am not too worried.

[klaas]

hi klaas,
what's your definition of document management? Are you able to privide a little bullet list of features which match your definition.
I think such a list would make an answer easier.
Cheers, jan

I answered this question in another thread, but I don't want to hijack the other thread so I will paste most of the reply here:

"Sharepoint is collaboration (and don't get me wrong, collaboration is great). Collaboration is working on document for a short period and intensive together. Document management is working together but less intensive, but it's for a longer period (that's why you for example use a tree structure to keep you're documents. You can find the more quickly)"

It's no bullet list but it's the most important argument for me.

Klaas