Dominik Marks 5 Months Ago - Edited Nice summary! For me the main disadvantage of site initializers is still that it is not able to create content/tempates etc. for the default "Liferay" site. So it is not possible to prepopulate a new Liferay instance with content. Therefore we still keep up with the resources importer (we wrote a custom extended version which is able to import more content types...) Please sign in to reply. Reply as... Cancel Vitaliy Koshelenko Dominik Marks 5 Months Ago - Edited Thanks! Actually, we try to avoid using the default site (especially, when there are mupliple sites in the instance). We can define a custom landing page to point to the required site, or implement a LoginPostAction for more complex logic. Please sign in to reply. Reply as... Cancel
Vitaliy Koshelenko Dominik Marks 5 Months Ago - Edited Thanks! Actually, we try to avoid using the default site (especially, when there are mupliple sites in the instance). We can define a custom landing page to point to the required site, or implement a LoginPostAction for more complex logic. Please sign in to reply. Reply as... Cancel
Benjamin Bini 5 Months Ago - Edited That is an awesome tool and this article is really interesting. But "update" support is more than necessary. In the real word we absolutely need to control at least structures and templates from version control and deploy it automatically with CI / CD. Site Initializers are not really usefull until some update feature is supported. Please consider it. Please sign in to reply. Reply as... Cancel Vitaliy Koshelenko Benjamin Bini 5 Months Ago - Edited Yea, missing "update" support is a big disadvantage, and I pointed it as #1 in my blog. But we still can use this feature during development, when there is no manualy inserted content, and we can hit the "Delete" button on a site without any fear :) I'd not say, that initializers are not really useful: we're usign this tool successfully on the current project with a bunch of pages, fragments, content, etc. - the deployment process and local env setup became much more easier, issues with environment differences are eliminated. But yeah, repeatable site re-creation is a little bit annoying. And, once we go to Production and customer starts inserting the content manually - we'll forget about this tool. On the other hand - insering PROD content programatically is not a good idea, too. Anyways, I have opened a ticker for "update" support - hope, Liferay team will take a look: https://issues.liferay.com/browse/LPS-162000 Please sign in to reply. Reply as... Cancel
Vitaliy Koshelenko Benjamin Bini 5 Months Ago - Edited Yea, missing "update" support is a big disadvantage, and I pointed it as #1 in my blog. But we still can use this feature during development, when there is no manualy inserted content, and we can hit the "Delete" button on a site without any fear :) I'd not say, that initializers are not really useful: we're usign this tool successfully on the current project with a bunch of pages, fragments, content, etc. - the deployment process and local env setup became much more easier, issues with environment differences are eliminated. But yeah, repeatable site re-creation is a little bit annoying. And, once we go to Production and customer starts inserting the content manually - we'll forget about this tool. On the other hand - insering PROD content programatically is not a good idea, too. Anyways, I have opened a ticker for "update" support - hope, Liferay team will take a look: https://issues.liferay.com/browse/LPS-162000 Please sign in to reply. Reply as... Cancel