A quick update on MaVeriCk

Wednesday, May 27, 2009 11:01:45 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00) ( )

I've been busy with some, paid (and therefore higher priority ;) ), work for the past week or so, which has meant I haven't had time to write up my Module Development in Maverick blog post.  I'll try to get that out next week.  In the mean time, you can pretty much just take the source (available here: http://github.com/anurse/Maverick) and start playing.  Creating a new module is as simple as copying one of the existing folders in the "Source/Web/Maverick.Web/Modules" folder, renaming it, and editing the "Module Application" class inside.  There's no registration necessary (thanks to MEF).

Have fun, feel free to post questions, and I'll talk to you next week!

Comments [3] | Permalink  
Friday, June 26, 2009 1:28:55 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
Hi Andrew.

Excellent platform start!!! I love asp.net MVC and I've been searching for something like this a long time. I tested platform like JSC Portal, Oxite but Maverick is really cool. It has clean concepts. When are you planning to make any progress on this project?

I have one more specific question about using of platform. I added one more portal directly in database table and added one specific page for it. When I start this second portal, always it shows me page of first portal. I looked the code of PagePrerouter where you calling PageRepository and I haven't found any criteria for portalId in it which I've set on page in databse? Am I missing something or this has not been implemented yet?
miata
Friday, June 26, 2009 5:06:23 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
Hi.
Good job. Modules follow real MVC concept. Great. But I miss two things about modules. The inter modules communication on page and module settings. Is there any plan to provide they in next releases?
peter
Friday, June 26, 2009 10:49:03 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
@miata - Maverick is in pretty early stages, so some things may not be fully implemented. Page handling appears to be one of those things I overlooked :). It should just be a matter of adding the PortalId criteria to the query though.

@peter - See your other post, I responded there :)
Andrew
Comments are closed.