Timeline for Implementing Robots.txt
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 10, 2015 at 12:05 | comment | added | Pankaj Gaur | Regarding managing code in Tridion - How to you maintain/manage this code in the case when you left the project and someone else want to take over? Regarding Non-Content assets - I would prefer to use a system for which it is meant to be used to be on the safer side and not worrying while upgrading it say 5 years down the line and wondering if I have to change my deployment strategy? | |
| Feb 9, 2015 at 19:30 | comment | added | S. T. | Re: maintaining code and "non-content" assets in Tridion, I'm curious to know what are some of the disadvantages based on your experiences with managing tridion based websites? Assuming that jars, dlls and config files updates can be automated using powershell/coreservices. | |
| Feb 7, 2015 at 0:44 | comment | added | Alvin Reyes | Poll is gone. I have a different reason for not managing robots.txt in the CMS--I updated my answer. | |
| Feb 7, 2015 at 0:40 | history | edited | Alvin Reyes | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
fixed numbers by removing hard-coded values and putting in 1. twice
|
| Apr 7, 2013 at 3:19 | comment | added | Alvin Reyes | @DominicCronin ok, so not all "code", but +1 to Pankaj's point on managing dll and jars with better tools. I don't necessarily agree code components or multimedia would be the best in-Tridion options (or that CMS only handles "content"). I do think this discussion would be better on Linked-In, Twitter, or even the forum. By Midas Rule, I started a poll! :-) | |
| Apr 6, 2013 at 12:16 | comment | added | Dominic Cronin | @AlvinReyes Should I stop publishing code out of the CMS? Now you're being silly. Should I stop publishing assets that are owned by development? Of course not. The point of a WCMS is that it allows you to manage both those concerns, but differently. If all I want to publish is content, I'll use FTP! | |
| Apr 6, 2013 at 12:12 | comment | added | Dominic Cronin | @PankajGaur I'm aware of many software architecture principles. You still haven't given a reason why we shouldn't manage robots.txt in the CMS | |
| Apr 6, 2013 at 7:05 | comment | added | Pankaj Gaur | (3) If you have a budget or time constraints (like you can not own a DSLR or do not have time to go to store and buy) or your requirement are quite precise (like you will only capture still objects in Day light and can live with low quality) you can go ahead and have your implementation in CMS (you can refer any of the above methods mentioned in the answer) | |
| Apr 6, 2013 at 7:01 | comment | added | Pankaj Gaur | @Dominica Cronin: Consider following points: (1) In Software Architecture, there is a principle called - SOLID Principle - where S stands for Single Responsibility (a class a supposed to do only a single well defined responsibility or function), you can extend it further to Components level where CMS is a component of your entire architecture and is defined to manage the content. (2) Consider a scenario when you are going to a scenic picnic and planning to capture few scene, which option will you choose - A DSLR camera or a mobile phone with camera? | |
| Apr 5, 2013 at 20:06 | comment | added | Alvin Reyes | +1 for the point that a CMS isn't meant for code publishing. @DominicCronin, I think the assumption here is robots.txt is (always) owned by development. If we break it down like other page and content types, maybe it's almost always managed by development. Giving authors a way to manage (maybe non-critical) website "configuration" could be a valid CMS use case. Not all users need access, nor do you need to make it a wide open text box. | |
| Apr 5, 2013 at 13:22 | comment | added | Dominic Cronin | I don't see why you shouldn't deploy your robots.txt from the CMS. You can argue that it's not content (I'd disagree) but even then it doesn't get us very far. Have you got a concrete reason why it's a bad idea? | |
| Apr 5, 2013 at 8:35 | history | edited | Pankaj Gaur | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 533 characters in body
|
| Apr 5, 2013 at 8:31 | comment | added | Pankaj Gaur | Point taken, updating the answer :) | |
| Apr 5, 2013 at 8:12 | comment | added | Bart Koopman | Very much agree with that, I think too often a CMS is seen as a deployment tool which it really is not (apart from all you can do). But with that said, when people do make it a requirement that a robots.txt is managed inside the CMS, then it is good to know how you can do it. | |
| Apr 5, 2013 at 7:57 | history | answered | Pankaj Gaur | CC BY-SA 3.0 |