A new client of mine has asked for us top recreate their small recruitment website. The main site is going to be done using Zend Framework 1.11 and mySql.
It is medium/small website for a team of two consultant recruiters which lists available positions with various companies and allows candidates to upload CVs and search for positions as well as displaying general information about the consultants.
They have asked that we also create a site capable of displaying on mobile devices (iPhone and Android) using a sub domain of their main site.
My question was this: Is it possible to point the mobi.myclientswebsitedomain.com to the www.myclientswebsitedomain.com site and simply change the layout used based on the detected device?
What is the best way to achieve this with the least effort?
Many thanks for any advice
John
Point your mobi. subdomain to the same webfolder as your www. domain. In your ActionController write conditional statment which will load different css files depending on the current subdomain.
I’m working on a project (one I’ve inherited) with one main website for the purposes of gathering contact information from potential customers and a collection of sub sites which serve the same purpose. Each of these sites has a different design and each one is served from a separate directory under the document root directory. Each of these sub sites is also served from the same URL as the main site with a different directory specified in the URL for each one of these subsites, e.g. “http://www.example.com/subsite/”.
The problem as it is now is that our web designers have to make manual changes to the HTML in each of the files for these sub sites whenever a change is needed. Ideally, they would like to be able to manage these sites and make changes to them in a more rapid way and without having to make manual changes to something like 60+ sites each containing potentially 10-15 pages of HTML.
I’ve been doing research into various solutions and I’m not sure which would be the best to manage something like this. These sites are all built in PHP and I’ve been looking into CMS solutions such as Drupal, SilverStripe, and MODX but I’m not certain if they would meet our needs. I don’t have a lot of experience working with a CMS so I’m hoping someone with more experience can provide some insight. Any suggestions anyone can make regarding how best to handle something like this are greatly appreciated.
If I’ve left out any information that might be helpful/necessary in someone providing advice just let me know.
Any CMS will do what you need.
If I've understood well every subsite share the same domain, but only resides in a subdirectory.
For example with MODX you could define different templates with specific design for every subsite.
All subsites however could share some chunks (html code) or snippets (php code), so that a change in shared things applies to all subsites.
You can easily migrate the exisiting design to MODX:
http://codingpad.maryspad.com/2009/03/28/building-a-website-with-modx-for-newbies-part-1-introduction/
and find the additional pieces you need:
http://modx.com/extras/
I have been asked to oversee the development of a handful of sites. The people running the show want it so that if you sign onto one of the sites, then you are automatically signed onto the rest of them.
One of my buddies who is a great programmer says there is no safe way to do this, is he right?
I had an idea that the main site (parent site) could host the daughter sites as sub domains, with each site having its own unique domain name.
What do you think?
Yes, it can be done. However, it won't be a trivial solution but will be a very expensive project that requires an extensive set of skills. Companies typically try to achieve this by establishing internal solutions themselves but tend to fail as complexity increases.
What you are trying to accomplished can also be done as a service. You may want to take a look at the following webpage:
http://www.covisint.com/web/guest/about-identity-services
Hope that helps!
OK, so let's say I have two different projects. Each are are related categorically, but different databases and such.
Example (projects):
Project Management
Help Desk Management
A user could be a member of either project (or both). But I want to be able to tie them together. So that either could be stand alone. Or, a help desk ticket could be tied to a project, etc.
I would have one user base.
So, how would I structure this? Would users be a sub-app of both? Would I have some type of "launcher" app that would contain these as two sub-apps?
Like:
Launcher App
Projects
Help Desk
Users
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 3 years ago.
Improve this question
We have written a software package for a particular niche industry. This package has been pretty successful, to the extent that we have signed up several different clients in the industry, who use us as a hosted solution provider, and many others are knocking on our doors. If we achieve the kind of success that we're aiming for, we will have literally hundreds of clients, each with their own web site hosted on our servers.
Trouble is, each client comes in with their own little customizations and tweaks that they need for their own local circumstances and conditions, often (but not always) based on local state or even county legislation or bureaucracy. So while probably 90-95% of the system is the same across all clients, we're going to have to build and support these little customizations.
Moreover, the system is still very much a work in progress. There are enhancements and bug fixes happening continually on the core system that need to be applied across all clients.
We are writing code in .NET (ASP, C#), MS-SQL 2005 is our DB server, and we're using SourceGear Vault as our source control system. I have worked with branching in Vault before, and it's great if you only need to keep 2 or 3 branches synchronized - but we're looking at maintaining hundreds of branches, which is just unthinkable.
My question is: How do you recommend we manage all this?
I expect answers will be addressing things like object architecture, web server architecture, source control management, developer teams etc. I have a few ideas of my own, but I have no real experience in managing something like this, and I'd really appreciate hearing from people who have done this sort of thing before.
Thanks!
I would recommend against maintaining separate code branches per customer. This is a nightmare to maintain working code against your Core.
I do recommend you do implement the Strategy Pattern and cover your "customer customizations" with automated tests (e.g. Unit & Functional) whenever you are changing your Core.
UPDATE:
I recommend that before you get too many customers, you need to establish a system of creating and updating each of their websites. How involved you get is going to be balanced by your current revenue stream of course, but you should have an end in mind.
For example, when you just signed up Customer X (hopefully all via the web), their website will be created in XX minutes and send the customer an email stating it's ready.
You definitely want to setup a Continuous Integration (CI) environment. TeamCity is a great tool, and free.
With this in place, you'll be able to check your updates in a staging environment and can then apply those patches across your production instances.
Bottom Line: Once you get over a handful of customers, you need to start thinking about automating your operations and your deployment as yet another application to itself.
UPDATE: This post highlights the negative effects of branching per customer.
Our software has very similar requirements and I've picked up a few things over the years.
First of all, such customizations will cost you both in the short and long-term. If you have control over it, place some checks and balances such that sales & marketing do not over-zealously sell customizations.
I agree with the other posters that say NOT to use source control to manage this. It should be built into the project architecture wherever possible. When I first began working for my current employer, source control was being used for this and it quickly became a nightmare.
We use a separate database for each client, mainly because for many of our clients, the law or the client themselves require it due to privacy concerns, etc...
I would say that the business logic differences have probably been the least difficult part of the experience for us (your mileage may vary depending on the nature of the customizations required). For us, most variations in business logic can be broken down into a set of configuration values which we store in an xml file that is modified upon deployment (if machine specific) or stored in a client-specific folder and kept in source control (explained below). The business logic obtains these values at runtime and adjusts its execution appropriately. You can use this in concert with various strategy and factory patterns as well -- config fields can contain names of strategies etc... . Also, unit testing can be used to verify that you haven't broken things for other clients when you make changes. Currently, adding most new clients to the system involves simply mixing/matching the appropriate config values (as far as business logic is concerned).
More of a problem for us is managing the content of the site itself including the pages/style sheets/text strings/images, all of which our clients often want customized. The current approach that I've taken for this is to create a folder tree for each client that mirrors the main site - this tree is rooted at a folder named "custom" that is located in the main site folder and deployed with the site. Content placed in the client-specific set of folders either overrides or merges with the default content (depending on file type). At runtime the correct file is chosen based on the current context (user, language, etc...). The site can be made to serve multiple clients this way. Efficiency may also be a concern - you can use caching, etc... to make it faster (I use a custom VirtualPathProvider). The largest problem we run into is the burden of visually testing all of these pages when we need to make changes. Basically, to be 100% sure you haven't broken something in a client's custom setup when you have changed a shared stylesheet, image, etc... you would have to visually inspect every single page after any significant design change. I've developed some "feel" over time as to what changes can be comfortably made without breaking things, but it's still not a foolproof system by any means.
In my case I also have no control other than offering my opinion over which visual/code customizations are sold so MANY more of them than I would like have been sold and implemented.
This is not something that you want to solve with source control management, but within the architecture of your application.
I would come up with some sort of plugin like architecture. Which plugins to use for which website would then become a configuration issue and not a source control issue.
This allows you to use branches, etc. for the stuff that they are intended for: parallel development of code between (or maybe even over) releases. Each plugin becomes a seperate project (or subproject) within your source code system. This also allows you to combine all plugins and your main application into one visual studio solution to help with dependency analisys etc.
Loosely coupling the various components in your application is the best way to go.
As mention before, source control does not sound like a good solution for your problem. To me it sounds that is better yo have a single code base using a multi-tenant architecture. This way you get a lot of benefits in terms of managing your application, load on the service, scalability, etc.
Our product using this approach and what we have is some (a lot) of core functionality that is the same for all clients, custom modules that are used by one or more clients and at the core a the "customization" is a simple workflow engine that uses different workflows for different clients, so each clients gets the core functionality, its own workflow(s) and some extended set of modules that are either client specific or generalized for more that one client.
Here's something to get you started on multi-tenancy architecture:
Multi-Tenant Data Architecture
SaaS database tenancy patterns
Without more info, such as types of client specific customization, one can only guess how deep or superficial the changes are. Some simple/standard approaches to consider:
If you can keep a central config specifying the uniqueness from client to client
If you can centralize the business rules to one class or group of classes
If you can store the business rules in the database and pull out based on client
If the business rules can all be DB/SQL based (each client having their own DB
Overall hard coding differences based on client name/id is very problematic, keeping different code bases per client is costly (think of the complete testing/retesting time required for the 90% that doesn't change)...I think more info is required to properly answer (give some specifics)
Layer the application. One of those layers contains customizations and should be able to be pulled out at any time without affect on the rest of the system. Application- and DB-level "triggers" (quoted because they may or many not employ actual DB triggers) that call customer-specific code or are parametrized with customer keys) are very helpful.
Core should never be customized, but you must layer it in somewhere, even if it is simplistic web filtering.
What we have is a a core datbase that has the functionality that all clients get. Then each client has a separate database that contains the customizations for that client. This is expensive in terms of maintenance. The other problem is that when two clients ask for a simliar functionality, it is often done differnetly by the two separate teams. There is currently little done to share custiomizations between clients and make common ones become part of the core application. Each client has their own application portal, so we don't have the worry about a change to one client affecting some other client.
Right now we are looking at changing to a process using a rules engine, but there is some concern that the perfomance won't be there for the number of records we need to be able to process. However, in your circumstances, this might be a viable alternative.
I've used some applications that offered the following customizations:
Web pages were configurable - we could drag fields out of view, position them where we wanted with our own name for the field label.
Add our own views or stored procedures and use them in: data grids (along with an update proc) and reports. Each client would need their own database.
Custom mapping of Excel files to import data into system.
Add our own calculated fields.
Ability to run custom scripts on forms during various events.
Identify our own custom fields.
If you clients are larger companies, you're almost going to need your own SDK, API's, etc.