Copied to clipboard

Flag this post as spam?

This post will be reported to the moderators as potential spam to be looked at

  • bh 8 posts 119 karma points
    4 days ago

    I hope you can help me determine, if I'm setting my project up correctly. A little background I come from a .NET webforms world. My plan is to setup a "MasterPage" template (that has everything for my header and footer in it, and all of the dependencies needed for a page). Then my plan is to have a "Page" template (with "MasterPage" as it's Master Template). Now this is where I'm a little uncertain...

    I have about 20 +/- content layouts lets call them "Building Blocks" that I can apply to a "Page". A "Page" would need to be able to hold multiple "Building Blocks". My thought is to setup a template for each one of these "Building Blocks".

    In summary: MasterPage > Page (1:1) Page > Building Blocks (1:many)

    Where MasterPage, Page and Building Blocks are all setup as Umbraco templates.

    Is this logic sound?

  • Nicholas Westby 1544 posts 4966 karma points c-trib
    3 days ago
    Nicholas Westby

    I'm guessing these "building blocks" are widgets. If so, I'd recommend this approach:

    In short, you create a single type of page, and a single document type (well, you can create multiple document types if you want to use ContentTemplates to set default widgets for certain types of pages).

    You can use Archetype or you can use Nested Content. Each of these plugins offers a very similar approach to building widgets. The advantage is that you don't have to create a bunch of nested content nodes; all the data is right on the page (which is faster for content editors).

  • bh 8 posts 119 karma points
    3 days ago

    @NicholasWestby thank you! I think I'm going to give Nested Content a try. Looks to be a shorter learning curve for me. The Archetype looks like it may be more robust, but it looks to be a bit more involved. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction!

Please Sign in or register to post replies

Write your reply to: