Sean Wright

My feedback

  1. 25 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    4 comments  ·  Kentico Product Ideas  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Hi,

    thanks for the suggestion! Based on the feedback we received, we are exploring this addition to the Page builder. Can you please share how important the following features are to you?

    1. The possibility to specify allowed sections per editable area
    2. The possibility to specify the number of sections that can be added to an editable area
    3. The possibility to specify allowed widgets per section

    Thanks

    David

    Sean Wright commented  · 

    I agree with the priority and reasons given by Elmar.

    Sean Wright supported this idea  · 
  2. 18 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    1 comment  ·  Kentico Product Ideas » Platform  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Sean Wright shared this idea  · 
  3. 3 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  Kentico Product Ideas » Platform  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Sean Wright supported this idea  · 
  4. 29 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  Kentico Product Ideas » Content Management  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Sean Wright supported this idea  · 
  5. 29 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    1 comment  ·  Kentico Product Ideas » Content Management  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Sean Wright supported this idea  · 
  6. 12 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  Kentico Product Ideas  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Sean Wright supported this idea  · 
  7. 19 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    3 comments  ·  Kentico Product Ideas » Platform  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Sean Wright commented  · 
    Sean Wright commented  · 

    @danny winbourne I would like the media picker as well - it seems like a better option than page attachments.

    I'm working on a solution for this with a custom widget, javascript image gallery and some CORS configuration on the CMS site to allow some querying of the Media Library data.

    I should have a working prototype within the next week or two that I can post on Github.

    That said, it would be nice to have official Widget packages/solutions from Kentico for things like this.

    Sean Wright supported this idea  · 
  8. 9 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  Kentico Product Ideas » Platform  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Sean Wright shared this idea  · 
  9. 24 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    5 comments  ·  Kentico Product Ideas » Platform  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Hi, Thank you very much for this idea.

    Code/API tweaks like this have to be done with caution and piece by piece. I am wondering what concrete scenarios required the async API in some way. Could you be so kind as to describe what did you implement with a need of async API?

    Maybe an async version of ObjectQuery could be just enough.

    Thank you

    Regards,

    Michal Kadak
    Platform Product Owner

    Sean Wright commented  · 

    The lack of this feature is even more noticable now with MVC in Kentico 12. The rest of the ASP.NET / .NET world has moved to async/await for db, filesystem, external web service calls. Kentico's data access layer is still sync in 2019.

    Sean Wright supported this idea  · 
    Sean Wright commented  · 

    @Michal,

    It would be great if we could leverage the async model binding for .net 4.6 webforms
    https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/webdev/2015/06/11/cool-asp-net-web-forms-features-in-2015-async-model-binding/

    I imagine a scenario where I need to pull data from a Kentico custom module class provider, the ShoppingCartInfoProvider and a Tax provider that makes async requests to a remote web service.

    Sean Wright commented  · 

    @Michal,

    Thanks for responding!

    At my company we integrate a lot with 3rd party web services which are often REST-like APIs. Sometimes these calls can take some time to complete and if we have to make multiple calls serially that can lead to the thread in IIS being locked for a period of time.

    If we could implement async throughout the entire request/response lifecycle then the threads could be used to handle other requests while the API calls are blocking.

    Since it is recommended that when implementing async it should be implemented 'all the way down' (http://blogs.msdn.com/b/pfxteam/archive/2012/04/13/10293638.aspx) it would make the adoption easier if Kentico also exposed an async implementation.

    I would have to explore a test example to be certain, but I feel as though an async ObjectQuery would possibly be sufficient.

    Thanks!

    Sean Wright shared this idea  · 
  10. 4 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  Kentico Product Ideas » Platform  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Sean Wright supported this idea  · 
  11. 107 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    1 comment  ·  Kentico Product Ideas » Platform  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Sean Wright supported this idea  · 
  12. 66 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  Kentico Product Ideas » Platform  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Sean Wright shared this idea  · 
  13. 27 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  Kentico Product Ideas » Platform  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Sean Wright shared this idea  · 
  14. 12 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    2 comments  ·  Kentico Product Ideas » Content Management  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Sean Wright supported this idea  · 
  15. 26 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  Kentico Product Ideas » Content Management  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Sean Wright supported this idea  · 
  16. 56 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Share your thoughts  ·  10 comments  ·  Kentico Product Ideas » Platform  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Sean Wright commented  · 

    The new Visual Studio installer for 2017 is really nice. The way it provides the idea of Products -> Workloads -> Individual Components is a good separation of granularity.

    If Kentico could offer an install that allowed for a high level selection of Workloads I think that would be a great first step.

    Imagine I'm going to be building Content only site with no public facing login/registration and no ecommerce. All I want is portal engine, simple webparts (no MyAccount stuff) for adding content in the portal (Repeaters, Static Text / Images / HTML, HTML Head).
    If I could select that and everything else would be removed that would be awesome.

    Now imagine I'm building an Ecommerce site and I don't want the Forums module but I do want all the Shopping Cart / My Account / Payment Gateway web parts. I would like to have a checkbox so I can install all features and code related to that workload.

    Sean Wright supported this idea  · 
  17. 80 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    11 comments  ·  Kentico Product Ideas » Platform  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Sean Wright supported this idea  · 
    Sean Wright commented  · 

    I also agree this should be standard. The fact is, dates are horribly confusing and there is rarely consensus between development and business on how they should be handled.

    The general user of a website doesn't understand dates/times/timezones let alone UTC but the nice thing it doesn't matter as long as the storage of the DateTime into the database is UTC. With that in place the application/frontend can display the date in whatever way is needed.

    DateTime is considered to be a poor implementation for dates/time in the first place which is why there are libraries like NodaTime http://nodatime.org/.

    At least standardizing Kentico to store in UTC would be a good start.

  18. 62 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    4 comments  ·  Kentico Product Ideas » Platform  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Sean Wright commented  · 

    We use SASS exclusively in our company except for sites where we have a large legacy CSS stylesheet.

    I think we would use SASS support in the editor if lib-sass was integrated to do the transpilation but I also think the continuous integration functionality might be a better solution since SASS should be kept in version control and the generated CSS is what should be placed in Kentico.

  19. 100 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    17 comments  ·  Kentico Product Ideas » Platform  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Sean Wright commented  · 

    I would like to see Orders & Forms first. Pages, Custom Module UI using Portal Engine templates & extenders and Products would be next on my list.

    Sean Wright supported this idea  · 
  20. 119 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    13 comments  ·  Kentico Product Ideas » Platform  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Sean Wright commented  · 

    Effective testability, which implies decoupling, which can be solved by interfaces, is the real issue here. So merging this with that issue is fine since 'testing' should really be the focus.

    +1 for Gabor

    Sean Wright commented  · 

    There is some mocking that is now possible, but the way context data is accessed in Kentico the ability to write unit tests for large portions of the site's functionality is limited.

    Like "Horizons" mentioned, the e-commerce code, while full of features and customization options, has so many instance dependencies and live-site context dependencies that there is no reasonable way to test a scenario like 'Adding an item to a cart that shouldn't have tax applied" and seeing the result of that test as passing because the total tax for the cart is 0.

    Kentico does not rely on interfaces much and developers are required to use a lot of inheritance and accessing static global objects as an API. I understand these are legacy architectural designs but for any sort of testing to be considered a usable feature with Kentico we will need a less coupled design where DI and mock-ability of functionality are available throughout the application.

← Previous 1

Feedback and Knowledge Base