More in this section
Forums / Developing with Sitefinity / Convention Over Configuration

Convention Over Configuration

The forums are in read-only mode. In case that you want to directly contact the Progress Sitefinity team use the support center. In our Google Plus group you can find more than one thousand Sitefinity developers discussing different topics. For the Stack Overflow threads don’t forget to use the “Sitefinity” tag.
2 posts, 0 answered
  1. fregas baratis
    fregas baratis avatar
    185 posts
    14 Nov 2002
    15 Jun 2007
    Link to this post
    Telerik Guys,

    I know that as developers we have a LOT of requests and can be very demanding.  I've been using Sitefinity since 2.5 thru work and have just started my second site using Sitefinity 3.0 Final Release.  I used the beta extensively too.  So i've posted a lot on here quite a bit with my requests, but bear with me.

    One thing that is very compelling with Ruby on Rails is the concept of "Convention over Configuration" although this is a philosophy not specific merely to Rails.  In the Rails world, there is very little configuration.  If you put your files in the right places, name your tables and columns a certain way, then Rails will make a lot of assumptions which gets you up and running quick and very productive from that point on.  About the only thing you have to configure by hand is your database connection string.  You can override default settings thru configuraiton (or code) but the out-of-the-box functionality works very well.

    In the .NET world, we have a tendency to be more like java with loads of Xml configuration settings.  Sitefinity is very configuration heavy: Control Paths, Providers, Content Fields, etc.  I realize that a lot of this is already set up for you because the project manager, but often if i have to integrate Sitefinity with another product or site, i have to remember where to put all those configuration settings or merge them with another web.config.  It would be nice if Sitefinity took a page from Rails and ASSUMED a whole bunch of things like the default providers for content, security etc. and only bothered with the web.config if something overrode it. 

    Another example of this is adding User Controls.  I know I can upload user controls thru sitefinity, but the reality is i never do this.   When i build a website, I build a lot of user controls from scratch and i need their code-behinds as part of the project.  So I just add them using the web.config.  This is a little tedious though.  It would be nice if there was just a defualt directory for User Controls that Sitefinity would import by default.  The titles and descriptions for the controls could be optionally added thru attributes on the user controls code behind.  In fact, i'm working on some code to do something like this if you're interested.

    Anyways, I just thought you might consider in future versions of Sitefinity of making it less configuration heavy.

  2. Pepi
    Pepi avatar
    981 posts
    31 Jan 2017
    18 Jun 2007
    Link to this post
    Hi fregas,

    We agree with you that there are a lot of things to be configured in Sitefinity and sometimes it is too complex and confusing. We are discussing different possibilities to move out some of the configurations in separate xml files in order to simplify the web.config and its maintenance. Also, we are planning for the future releases to include tools that will help with the most common web.config configurations.

    So thanks a lot for this issue. We are doing the best to improve Sitefinity along these lines.

    All the best,
    the Telerik team

    Instantly find answers to your questions at the new Telerik Support Center
2 posts, 0 answered