I'm currently working on a simple scroll website with nothing really difficult (I could almost use plain html/css/javascript but it's a bit of practicing and I will maybe add a blog). And as it is simple I was wondering how to do it properly with Django.
So here is my question, I have a homepage template that is actually the website and I don't really get how I split my different part in different apps.
For exemple I have a contact form, do I need to split it in another app and then include it in the basic template ? I want to add a galery with image in a database, do I create an app for that ?
And the other question that goes along is how do I code an app that is not returning httpresponse but just html to put it in another template and do I still need views ? I would like to do a bit like a standard form in django where you do :
form.as_p or form.as_table
so maybe:
galery.as_slideshow
So my questions are quite novice and open but someone could give me some reading to get going, I would be really happy !
This is a question a lot of people struggle with and it seems like there are a lot of varying opinions out there.
I've found that the best way to really determine the appropriate answer for each case is to really distill the feature into individual requirements and group them by feature sets while keeping an eye out for additional uses outside of the project actively being worked on.
There is nothing which says you can't build your project to include a single app containing all of the modules you would need. Doing so seems like it would make your development easier initially right? So, the question to ask then is "What if I want to reuse (insert feature set here) in another unrelated project a year from now after I've already forgotten about the weird stuff I did to make it work originally?". Asking yourself that question forces you to think about your features in a much broader context and I think 99% of the time you will realize that a "Contact Form" requirement can actually become quite complex and really should be split up into at least one separate app (i.e. User Creation, Profile Management, Email Subscription, etc...)
Here is a link to a video about this very topic which I found to be useful in figuring out my way through this question:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-S0tqpPga4
I know this is not really a hard-line answer to your question but I hope it helps point you in the right direction.
We operate a ColdFusion site with a custom CSS acting as a directory of various companies. Depending on the type of company, we have a set of subpages containing specific information pulled from the CMS about the company, such as "location/directions". We're looking to add functionality enabling users to add comments to the existing content. I'm looking for suggestions on open source or other available ColdFusion software out there that could work for this. While we could write something custom, commenting tools have been done a thousand times and probably better than we can do it.
While what we're looking for sounds like a blog or forum, its more of a hybrid. We'd like to be able to add functionality enabling commenting on the content we post in the context we post it in. Seems like there must be something out there that can be easily modified and integrated with our CMS.
Does anyone know of anything out there we should look into?
I'm going to vote to close this too, as per the others, but here's an answer anyway.
If you just want to add commenting to existing content, perhaps use Disqus. It's not locally installable (and is not CFML-based; it's all JS), but it does handle most things one would need if just wanting to add comments to a site.
If you want a native, self-managed solution, unfortunately StackOverflow have deemed that sort of question "unworthy", so you'll need to ask elsewhere. Despite being an entirely reasonable question, for which the answers would be helpful to other people later on (which is - in theory - the raison d'etre of Stack Overflow. Although that's hard to tell, sometimes).
This is my first post here, so forgive me for stupid questioning or describing my problem not „the programmer's way“. :-)
I've added Facebook comments to my Wordpress blog. Now, I posted a test comment with another Facebook profile than the one I used to create the app.
Voila, the comment appeared on the Graph API of that site. Worked well.
I deleted the comment, but it seems as it's still visible in the Graph API of the site.
Is there any cache for deleted comments!? How can I fix that?
It's important for me to know, because I think of a contest. Users have to add captions to pictures via the Facebook commentbox.
It doesn't give me any benefit, if comments that have been deleted will remain in the Graph API.
Any solution for it? What else do you need to know what I'm talking about? :-)
Cheers,
Axel
You can't delete comments, that's a bit bad documented. All you can do is hide it from other users. Every fb user that is a friend of the user that posted that 'deleted' comment can see the comment as well as the user himself too (in the actual fb comments box).
Furthermore it will exist forever in the graph api! That's facebooks way of pushing freedom of expression!
Anyway if you delete content it doesn't sound like a fair contest to people, as they might feel objected, also not everyone will have the same chances then. A system where you can properly approve 'comments/captiions' would make way more sense. See Diskus for example.
If you wanna have the facebook comments social advertising boost though you could write all comments from the graph api into a database and then approve them manually. Another way would be just to tell users to subscribe/like your facebook page to see who's winning or to be able to win at all. Good luck
ZEN Cart seems to be able to do anything I could possibly ever want, but seems a bit bloated (for me) and more importantly - it's design process seems unbearable. I don't want to have reform a default design, I have my website design completed other than the shopping cart related items. I want to be able to add them in, working the shopping cart into my site, rather than the other way around. I need a shopping cart that can handle discounts and inventories and such, and of course as small as possible. Can anyone help recommend an OS cart that will allow this?
Thank so much for your time and suggestions!!
You didn't ask for any platform/languages in particular, so.
If you're using Django, then Satchmo looks to be an attractive option. Even if you're not, it might be fairly trivial to mash in, depending on how your site is set up.
You could consider using the cart that Google Checkout provides — is a JS system , easily themed with CSS (if you can learn to accept the !important tag), but SimpleCartJs is as easy as it comes, and it's for PayPal. Re-styles easily and it's pretty elegant.
Problem
At work we have a department wiki (running Mediawiki). Unfortunately several
persons edit without logging in, and that makes it very difficult to track
down editors to ask questions about the content.
There are two strategies to improve this
encourage logged in editing
discourage anonymous editing.
Encouraging
For this part, any tips are welcome. But of course there is always risks involved
in rewarding behaviours.
Discourage
I know that this must be kept low or else it will discourage any editing.
But something just slightly annoying would be nice to have.
[update]
I know it is possible to just disallow anonymous editing, but that will put a high barrier to any first time contribution (especially for people outside our department!), so I do not think that is an option.
[/update]
[update2]
Using LDAP or Active Directory does not solve the problem since the wiki is also accessible and used by external contractors.
[/update2]
[update3]
I am no longer working for this company. That does not mean that I completely have lost interest in this question, but from my current interest point the most valuable part is the "Did you forget to log in?" part below, and I will accept answers based on this part of the question.
[/update3]
Confirmation
One thought was to have an additional confirmation step for anonymous users -
"Are you really sure you want to submit this anonymously?", although with
such a question there is a risk that people will give up or resist editing. However,
if that question is re-phrased in a more diplomatic way as "Did you forget
to log in?" I think it will appear as much more acceptable. And besides that
will also capture those situations where the author did in fact forget to
log in, but actually would want to have his/her contributions credited
his/her user. This last point is by itself a good enough reason for wanting it.
Is this possible?
Delay
Another thought for something to be slightly annoying is to add an extra
forced delay after "save page" displaying something like "If you had logged
in you would not have to wait x seconds". Selecting a right x is difficult
because if it is to high it will be a barrier and if it too low might not
make any difference. But then I started thinking, what about starting at
zero and then add one second delay for each anonymous edit by a given IP
address in a given time frame? That way there will be no barrier for
starting to use the wiki, and by the time the delay is getting significant
the user has already contributed a lot so I think the outcome is much
more likely to be that the editor eventually creates a user rather than
giving up. This assumes IP addresses are rather static, but that is very
typically is the case in a business network.
Is this possible?
You can Turn off Anonymous Editing in Mediawiki like so:
Edit LocalSettings.php and add the following setting:
$wgDisableAnonEdit = true;
Edit includes/SkinTemplate.php, find $fname-edit and change the code to look like this (i.e., basically wrap the following code between the wfProfileIn() and wfProfileOut() functions):
wfProfileIn( "$fname-edit" );
global $wgDisableAnonEdit;
if ( $wgUser->mId || !$wgDisableAnonEdit) {
// Leave this as is
}
wfProfileOut( "$fname-edit" );
Next, you may want to disable the [Edit] links on sections. To do this, open includes/Skin.php and search for editsection. You will see something like:
if (!$wgUser->getOption( 'editsection' ) ) {
Change that to:
global $wgDisableAnonEdit;
if (!$wgUser->getOption( 'editsection' ) || !$wgDisableAnonEdit ) {
Section editing is now blocked for anonymous users.
Forbid anonymous editing and let people log in using their domain logins (LDAP). Often the threshold is the registering of a new user and making up username and password and such.
I think you should discourage anonymous edits by forbidding them - it's an internal wiki, after all.
The flipside is you must make the login process as easy as possible. Hopefully you can configure the login cookie to have a decent length (like 1 month) so they only need to login once per month.
Play to the people's egos, and add a rep system kind of like here. Just make a widget for the home page that shows the number of edits made by the top 5 users or something. Give the top 1 or 2 users a MVP reward at regular (monthly?) intervals.
Well, I doubt that this solution will be valuable for hlovdal, given that this question is now two months old, but maybe somebody else will find it useful:
The optimum solution to this problem is to enable automatic logins. This requires two steps. First, you need to add automatic authentication to your web service. Right now, we're using Apache with the Debian usn-libapache2-authenntlm-perl package on our internal application server*. (Our network is Active Directory and, obviously, the server runs on Debian Linux.) Second, you need a MediaWiki extension that makes MediaWiki aware of the web service's authentication. I've used the Automatic REMOTE_USER Authentication module successfully on an Apache web server that was tied into our network via an NTLM authentication module, but I do recall that it required a bit of massaging the code to make it work:
I had to follow the "horrid hacks" given on the extension's page, changing the setPassword() and addUser() functions to always return true instead of always returning false.
Since Active Directory is case-insensitive and MediaWiki isn't, I replaced both instances of the statement $username = $_SERVER['REMOTE_USER'] with $username = getCanonicalName($_SERVER['REMOTE_USER']).
Since I wanted to only allow certain people within the company to use our wiki, I set autoCreate() to always return false. It doesn't sound as if you need to worry about this, so you should leave autoCreate() at always returning true, which means that anybody on your company network will be able to access the wiki.
The nifty thing about this solution is that nobody has to log in into the wiki, ever; they simply go to a wiki page and they are logged in under their network ID.
* We just switched to this from a Red Hat server that was using mod_ntlm. Unfortunately, mod_ntlm hasn't been updated in a while and it's been starting to sporadically fail. I mention this because I've started to stumble on a performance issue with our current MediaWiki configuration that may require further code massaging....
Make sure users don't get logged out if they look away from the screen or sneeze or scratch their head. You want long, persistent, sessions. Once logged in, stay logged in.
That's the problem with the MediaWiki our company is using internally - you log in, do stuff, then come back later and it logged you out, but the notification of not being logged in anymore is so insignificant on the screen that the user never notices.
If this runs within an internal network, you could pull Active Directory information so that no one has to log in, ever. That's how I do it at work. That is, if they are logged into their windows machine, then my webapps can pick up their username and associate that (or their userid) with their edits.
I don't know if this would be easy to add to MediaWiki, though.
I'd recommend checking out wikipatterns.org - a great site about the social aspects of wikis
Explicitly using some form of directory service (LDAP) would probably be a good idea, so that your users are always fully identified. On the other hand, wikis are subject to their own dynamics, in fact some wikis are so successful because they can be anonymously edited, so that's another thing to keep in mind.
Apart from that, personally I'd try to create some sort of incentive for users to contribute openly and identifiable: this could be based on a point/score system so that there are stats shown for all users who have contributed to the wiki each day, this could possibly even create some sort of competition.
Likewise, the wiki could by default not show any anonymously contributed contents without them being reviewed first, which would be another incentive for users to contribute openly.
SO has an extremely low barrier for posting. You could allow people to specify their name when making an edit. When they are ready, they can finally log in to avoid having to type their name all the time.
You said this is in a departmental situation. Can't you add a feature to the wiki where it makes an educated guess as to who is editing based on the IP address, and annotates the edit accordingly?
I agree absolutely with everyone who recommends carefully researching the effects of anonymity in your application before you start "forbidding" it. In a great many cases people prefer anonymous editing because they DO NOT WANT TO BE ASKED ABOUT IT, IDENTIFIED WITH IT, OR SUFFER SOME PROBLEM FOR POINTING IT OUT. You need to be VERY sure these factors are not driving users to prefer anonymous edits, and frankly you should continue to allow anonymized edits with a generic credential login like "anonymous_employee" or "anonymous_contractor", in case someone wants to point out an issue without becoming identified with it.
Re the "thought... to have an additional confirmation step for anonymous users- "Are you really sure you want to submit this anonymously?", it's a good idea, but do not "re-phrase" in a way that suggests it is wrong to not be logged in as yourself, i.e. don't say "Did you forget to log in?" I'd instead note it this way:
"Your edit will appear as an IP number - it may be attributed to 'anonymous_employee' or 'anonymous_contractor' or 'anonymous_contributor' for your privacy protection. You will not be notified of any answer or response to it. If you prefer to have this contribution credited, then [log in right now]."
That leaves it absolutely clear what will happen, doesn't pressure anyone to do it either way, and does not bias what is being contributed with some "rewards".
You can also, alternately, force a login via LDAP / cookies, and then ask them if they prefer this edit to be anonymous. That is the approach taken on some blog platforms. In an intranet the abuse potential for this is basically zero, so you would presumably only have situations where someone didn't want 'how they knew' or 'why they raised this' to be the question rather than the data itself... IBM has shown in some careful research that anonymized feedback is very much more useful than attributed in correcting groupthink & management blind sides.