Implementing Factory

[nilshoerrmann]

We currently have the following active network sites:

• getsymphony.com (by @allen)
• symphonyextensions.com (by @nickdunn)
• symphonyninjas.com (by @lewiswharf)
• xpathr.com (by @alpacaaa and @bauhouse)

There are also the following missing or inactive projects:

• documentation
• german developer network

The latter project is more or less abandoned and can be replaced by a simple German landing page on getsymphony.com.

Domains

I know there have been general talks about this already. I would be nice if we could agree on the upcoming domain structure.

Option 1: Subdomains

• getsymphony.com
• extensions.getsymphony.com
• ninjas.getsymphony.com
• docs.getsymphony.com
• de.getsymphony.com, it.getsymphony.com etc.
• xpathr.getsymphony.com

Option 2: Subfolders

• getsymphony.com
• getsymphony.com/extensions
• getsymphony.com/ninjas
• getsymphony.com/docs
• getsymphony.com/de, getsymphony.com/it etc.
• getsymphony.com/xpathr

Option 3: Separate Domains

• getsymphony.com
• symphonyextensions.com
• symphonyninjas.com
• symphonydocs.com
• symphony-cms.de etc.
• xpathr.com

Personally, I like the subfolder setup because the structure is readable ("get Symphony docs", "get Symphony extensions"). I often heard that xPathr is an exception because it can be used outside the Symphony context and should thus reside under its own domain – I'd like to question this: personally I think 99% of the users will be Symphony users so I'd prefer to have it under the Symphony label. Also, it's a great way to introduce the other 1% to Symphony. If xPathr should be under its own domain, the question is why it should use Factory at all because this is actually promoting the Symphony network brand?

Moving to Factory

As we already mentioned in our emails: it would be great if we could share private repositories of the network sites to work on the migration to Factory.

What do you think about this idea?
Does the symphonycms organisation have private repos left?

Schedule

It would be great if we could start collaborating on Mark's ninjas site first because it's the least complex one so far. Simultaneously, I think looking at xPathr is a good idea.

The main and the extensions sites are the most complex ones so this is where we still have to design a lot.

How should the network be relaunched in general? All sites at once? The main site first? The first finished site first?

/cc @johannahoerrmann

[alpacaaa]

Your concerns about xpathr are perfectly valid. I'm fine with having it under the getsymphony.com network, if everyone thinks it's a good idea.

An ensemble of the version we're working on isn't available yet, but will be pushed to github as soon as it is useable.

[nilshoerrmann]

Marco, do you and Stephen already have plans how the content structure of xPathr should evolve? Currently you have this nice multi panel setup and my fear is that Factory's page header and network footer will take away to much space from your content area. One idea I had was to have fullscreen mode for your site. So if you have anything to share, just drop us a line. Thanks!

[lewiswharf]

No to separate domains. Subdomains vs Subfolders... I'm indifferent. SEO -> subfolders?

Also, it's a great way to introduce the other 1% to Symphony.

I agree regarding xPathr. Glad you brought it up.

[allen]

I'm happy for xpathr to be included as part of the getsymphony domain. This has a nice side benefit for xpathr to not need any calls to an external API to authenticate. Login form posts can all be made to auth.getsymphony.com and the auth server can either set a global sessions for all network sites, or set individual ones for subsites.

[alpacaaa]

Awesome

@nilshoerrmann Stephen is taking some time to define the new look of xpathr. I think it will take a while though, because the whole thing started no more than a few days ago.

[nilshoerrmann]

I think it will take a while though, because the whole thing started no more than a few days ago.

@alpacaaa and @bauhouse: No problem. As soon as you have something to show, give us a shout – we just like to stay up-to-date to see where we have to adjust Factory and to find patterns that can be included with the framework right away.

@allen: Is it already possible that you setup the server so that the different teams can work at a central place (still private of course).

What are your thoughts on the subdomain/subfolder options?

[allen]

@nilshoerrmann: Regarding server setup, each network sites will have its own SSH login that can access their specific project. The SSH login will also have push/pull privileges to the Github repository.

[bauhouse]

I've been exploring the Factory layouts to see what will work with the new xpathr design. I'm currently trying to assess what I can do to integrate elements from Factory and where I should keep the UI of xpathr as lean as possible.

I do like the idea of a fullscreen mode. At the same time, I would like to keep things as simple as possible to start off, then add more complex features as we go. Mostly, I'm looking for a full-width, fluid layout that will work well with the multipanel UI we have in mind for xpathr.

[nilshoerrmann]

There are some additional idea about how to deal with xPathr in issue #35.

[nilshoerrmann]

The approach in #35 is quite contrary to the idea in this thread to move xPathr under the getsymphony.com domain. So please have a look: it's about keeping xPathr a standalone site (no network toolbar or footer) but offering inline xPathr creation/linking on the forum.

/cc @symphonycms/symphony-network