nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

As we transition to the new Hyland Community, some post links may be temporarily disrupted as we finalize redirects. We apologize for the inconvenience and are working to resolve this as quickly as possible. Details.

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.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

francescof

Try connecting to http://localhost:8080/slingshot/.

useeliger

Thanks for the tip - but seems to be very beta.

mikeh

I'd say more "alpha" at this stage

rscheele

Yes, very ALPHA

What i and others users have been asking in different topics, is the 31st of july still the 3.0 community deadline?

joechavez

Yes, very ALPHA What i and others users have been asking in different topics, is the 31st of july still the 3.0 community deadline?

And that's what we'd like to know as well. Looking at the current stage, this is still very far from being usable. I can't even upload a file. And that's the very basic operation of an ECM system, no? BTW, the upload is hard-coded to "localhost" only.

And we have concerns about Alfresco at this. Since the old web client is pretty much shelved (which is unfortunate, really), and looking at the current Slingshot thingy, which is not even as intuitive as the old web client, we are asking ourselves, what are we going to do with our deployment?

The web client was one of the nicest designs we have used, we do not really understand the move to abandon it.

mabayona

I do not think that the web client is going to be abandoned and not supported. I think is there and will be kept in the future (with no further development). We use 2.9C_dev and plan to use it beyond 3.0. The idea is to use 3.0 features to extend and complement the web client functionality already available (e.g. as webscript/dashlets) and to migrate slowly to 3.0/webscript.

On the other side, Optaros has announced that will be delivering a web-client "clon" in web scripts that could be used as "migration path".

rscheele

No, the 2.x web client would continue to exist and to be supported - but plans we're (are?) to present an additional brand new user interface targeted at the knowledge worker - providing a Sharepoint alternative, both in terms of looks and end-user functionality end july. It seems to me that the underlying architecture is more or less finished, but the 3.0 web client isn't far from finished.

hvyas

What about 2.9C version? When it will be available? Any input would be appreciated.

klaas

It's a pity when there will be two separated interfaces. Even more if you will use to different stores. This will mean we can' t use the slingshot version. It would be nicer if there is a special space that redirects the user to the slingshot interface and if the documents and other content (like wiki,..) from the slingshot interface will be unavailable in the webclient.

Klaas

rscheele

As far as i know, the new web client is just one that's built on top of alfresco WCM (actually, http://wiki.alfresco.com/wiki/Web_Framework_3.0). It uses the AVM store and it can communicate with the current alfresco repository using web services (http://wiki.alfresco.com/wiki/Web_Scripts), so it just loosely coupled - not like the current JSP based web client - which by itself is of course a great architectural advantage.

The web framework uses components like a document library through which you can upload, read, update, etc your documents from the java content repository. The whole thing is centered around 'sites' instead of 'spaces', so i don't know if things can be mapped one-on-one.

Again, any input from Alfresco Engineers to these questions would be greatly appreciated - seems like community members have some doubt regarding 3.0 and the current roadmap (like a 2.9c release in june).

stevereiner

You might want to check out FlexSpaces. This is a rich client for Alfresco developed with Flex (browser and AIR clients) and web scripts. The AIR version has support for drag/drop of desktop files, offlining. Additional coverage of web client features will be added to flexspaces. Its default configuration applications are targeted at power users and administration (of 2.x/3.0 main/avm stores, and will add support for 3.0 site collab stores)

Its components can be used to create simpler UIs (in Flex applications or integrated in html/ajax web applications). Ajax/html webscript components can even be integrated inside the flex applications.

The latest version now has source.
http://forge.alfresco.com/projects/flexspaces/

P.S. slingshot is currently using separate workspace stores not avm stores. Saw a bunch of cool stuff checked in recently (blogs, wikis, configable dashboards) !! (not in the last nightly build from 6/17/08)

Steve Reiner
http://www.integratedsemantics.org
http://www.integratedsemantics.com

mikeh

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.

Thanks,
Mike

chen_shaopeng

Although the 2.x web client might be there for some time (but how long before sunsetting?), but the fact that development is frozen is enough of concerns for existing users. That means existing users get themselves into a dead end.

And the fact that the stores are incompatible just make the whole thing even harder to swallow. And "having a rethink in this exact area" means, is the rethink over or just starting?

And what is the decision on that?

And as you said, people have probably done a lot of customization and extensions already. Does it mean that, we are either stuck with a shelved product, or take the pain to re-develop again all those customizations in a new environment, with all the cost of development, training, testing, learning curve… ?

Too many questions unanswered after half a day of trying out the new 3.0.

mikeh

Although the 2.x web client might be there for some time (but how long before sunsetting?), but the fact that development is frozen is enough of concerns for existing users. That means existing users get themselves into a dead end.

Nobody said development was frozen. We have a naming problem at the moment - there will be two web clients: JSF and Slingshot. Obviously they can't both be the "Web Client" but they both exist and are being worked on. More effort is being poured into Slingshot, but there are also people working on the JSF client.

And the fact that the stores are incompatible just make the whole thing even harder to swallow. And "having a rethink in this exact area" means, is the rethink over or just starting? And what is the decision on that?

The stores aren't incompatible at all. You can already create FTP and CIFS interfaces to SiteStore purely through configuration. APIs can access both stores. The only issue is that the current JSF client can't access it, because it was never designed with that in mind. Doesn't mean it's incompatible though.

And as you said, people have probably done a lot of customization and extensions already. Does it mean that, we are either stuck with a shelved product, or take the pain to re-develop again all those customizations in a new environment, with all the cost of development, training, testing, learning curve… ?

No, of course not.

rscheele

Oke, anyhow, communication is just bad: we would be having early previews of the upcoming 3.0 release (barcelona community meeting) - latest nightly build dates back to 17 june. A 2.9c community versions was communicated - nothing is delivered. As a result of that, i have my doubts regarding 3.0. I think expectations aren't clearly communicated - otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation.

mikeh

… 3.0 … latest nightly build dates back to 17 june.

Are you looking in the correct place? http://dev.alfresco.com/downloads/nightly/dist/

A 2.9c community versions was communicated - nothing is delivered.

Yes, that's true - I can only apologise for the delay with 2.9.

Mike

joechavez

Nobody said development was frozen. We have a naming problem at the moment - there will be two web clients: JSF and Slingshot. Obviously they can't both be the "Web Client" but they both exist and are being worked on. More effort is being poured into Slingshot, but there are also people working on the JSF client.

Well, I have a hard time with that one too. If it's not frozen, why is it called "warehoused"? Doesn't that mean no new development on that anymore, and all efforts will only be on slingshot?

I think I can speak for a lot of people here, because all signs (from the roadmap, from the posts here, from the wiki, from some information on the Alfresco web site…) indicate that the 2.x web client is being abandoned. And I'm pretty sure there will be no new development on the web client. Now, can someone confirm that I'm wrong? I update from HEAD frequently, and I don't see much going in web client.

The stores aren't incompatible at all. …

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.

We have a busy 2.1 server running now, with a lot of in house extensions and modules. We were eager to see 3.0, and when we finally saw what's coming, I have to say, concern is an understatement.

joechavez

… 3.0 … latest nightly build dates back to 17 june.
Are you looking in the correct place? http://dev.alfresco.com/downloads/nightly/dist/

Haha, rscheele dude, why did you have to post just before another build coming out

mrintegrity

I'd say more "alpha" at this stage

This is a bit of a concern for me. We are currently planning for a test of Alfresco, coincidentally, we are planning for the test phase A to start on 31st July.

I already have a test system running with 2.1 but I am finding some of it's limitations a bit too discouraging, particularly in light of a new version coming out on an uncertain but close date that is (by the sounds of things) not easily transitioned to from 2.1, the features planned for 3.0 are much more in line with what we are looking for.

The questions I am asking myself, and that are causing me to feel a fair bit of strain with my colleagues

are:

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.

2. Can the 3.0 dev build provide enough stability for a limited test as it currently stands?

3. Will the 3.0 release be ready when we need it to be (Phase B of the test starts 11/8 when we bring in other departments and try real world scenarios)

Basically, if the current 3.0 build is usable without having to have someone babysit the server then I'm all for starting with that, providing there is at least a good chance it will be ready roughly when it's supposed to be. I'm not trying to pressure anyone, just want to know is all so that I can plan properly

Thank you very much for your time,

Alan

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

mikeh

"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

Hi

Personally, I'm still not clear as to the feature set you're looking for. You mentioned "tree structure" which is in both the JSF client and the Document Library within the Share client - but presumably you've got a more comprehensive list than that?

The out-of-the-box Share client allows you to create a site consisting solely of a Document Library. We think that features like tagging and custom filters (queries) make finding documents more intuitive than just a "normal search".

If you do have a specific set of requirements, please describe them here or as feature requests in JIRA which would help greatly!

Thanks,
Mike