pedro-pmcweb
-
2/13/2014 9:21:49 AM
Using categories vs using custom document type to group documents
Hi,
I need to list Profile(s) grouped by Team(s) in a Viewer (I think Hierarchical is one to use instead of nested repeaters), the same Profile can be in multiple teams and they would have to be sorted per Team.
I thought about many implementations with Kentico's inbuilt features, but am struggling to figure out which is the best, and would appreciate any input anyone could have.
The implementation scenario 1 is with a Profile and Team document type, the document tree would look like
Profiles (with Hierarchical Viewer) - Team 1 (Team Document Type) -- Profile 1 (Profile Document Type) -- Profile 2 * (Profile Document Type) - Team 2 (Profile Document Type) -- Profile 3 (Profile Document Type) -- Profile 4 (Profile Document Type) -- Profile 2 * (??)
Sorting will be done with the NodeOrder, however am struggling on how to achieve "Profile 2 *" as it is the same profile as on "Team 1", will this need to be a new document of the Profile type? Or will the transformation on the Hierarchical Viewer use the original document if this is setup with "URL redirection" (CMSDesk > Edit > Properties > Navigation)?
Scenario 2 involves having Teams as on-site categories and a Profile document type with a Multi-category selection field for the categories and Rank numeric field (for the category ordering), the document tree would look like
Profiles (with Hierarchical Viewer) -- Profile 1 (Profile Document Type, Team 1 category) -- Profile 2 (Profile Document Type, Team 1 and Team 2 categories) -- Profile 3 (Profile Document Type, Team 2 category) -- Profile 4 (Profile Document Type, Team 2 category)
With this scenario, sorting is based on Rank of profile (not as flexible as scenario 1) and I'm not sure how I would implement the Hierarchical Viewer to query for Categories and Document Types, is this even possible?
I'd appreciate any help anyone would have on this, we are planning this feature for a new site, have built a Kentico site before, but never had this requirement before.
Many thanks, P.
|