Fog Creek Software
Discussion Board




Knowledge Base
Documentation
Terry's Tips
Darren's Tips

Replace an existing image

We're all away of the problems with updating a new image. That is what happens if you delete and then add a new image with the same name.

A while back someone found a work around. I seem to remember it had to do with opening and pasting over, but I dont remember exactly and my initial experiments have not been succesful.

Does anyone remember?

Chad Z. Hower
Wednesday, March 05, 2003

This may be it:

http://discuss.fogcreek.com/CityDesk/default.asp?cmd=show&ixPost=4014&ixReplies=4

tk
Wednesday, March 05, 2003

An SP must have broken this. It no longer works. Paste is not even an option.

Chad Z. Hower
Friday, March 07, 2003

I regularly replace pictures by right-clicking on them and selecting Properties. Click Import. From here you can browse and select a new picture, open it and write new caption etc.. It usually works fine, but a few times this procedure has deleted the whole page so it is best to save the page before each operation. That's all there is to it.

Jorgen Brenting
Friday, March 07, 2003

We are talking about different things. I dont want to change it in an HTML file. I want to replace the actual image, without it breaking every HTML file that uses it.

Chad Z. Hower
Friday, March 07, 2003

One solution is to edit the image using an external editor, and paste the new image on top of it, in the editor. So you're really editing an image, not replacing it.

This has been driving me crazy, too, and it's actually on my list of bug fixes for next week. We'll make it so if you drag in something with the name of something that already exists you are prompted if you want to overwrite, and if you do, all the links will be properly fixed up.

Joel Spolsky
Friday, March 07, 2003

This will be an update to 1.0? If so this is very welcome news, as this is a big time consumer for me now.

Chad Z. Hower
Saturday, March 08, 2003

I'd love to see large files (well, all binaries) outside of the .cty file altogether. Maybe making the .cty file a zip with the CityDesk db inside of it along with the binaries, or just getting them out of the .cty file altogether & sticking them in a folder with pointers.

But, I've ranted about this before & I'm sure Fog is listening. =)

www.marktaw.com - posting while on vacation (I have some down time)
Monday, March 10, 2003

Yes, I would love to see this too. Checking the CTY file into a VCS is quite slow....

Also Id like the option to have templates external, for easy sharing between sites.

Chad Z. Hower
Tuesday, March 11, 2003

Yeah... A straight up XML system could work quite nicely, with the CD articles, templates, etc. all contained in seperate XML files that get parsed the same way they do today in the database. I think CD adds enough functionality that it wouldn't just be a simple XML/XSLT transformation.

www.marktaw.com - posting while on vacation (I have some down time)
Tuesday, March 11, 2003

All these ideas about having extra files everywhere would be a nightmare for many users. CityDesk is supposed to make it easy for people without much experience or technical knowledge to update their web sites. They aren't going to be able to figure out which files they need to copy when they want to take their CityDesk site home to work on it. They'll end up breaking their site or overwriting the wrong files or something.

Leaving everything in one .cty file is much easier for the average user to manage.

Darren Collins
Tuesday, March 11, 2003

A facility to import/export/share templates would be cool, though.

Darren Collins
Tuesday, March 11, 2003

I like having everything in one basket, so to speak, even if it is a very large basket.  My entire web site is in one 11.2 MB file, which makes it easy to make sure I have backed everything up.

I do not think CityDesk should automatically move documents to an archive folder as that would change the link and break bookmarks and search engine listings. 

Features to automatically rotate content onto top level category pages then off to archive pages would be nice, though.

David Burch
Wednesday, March 12, 2003

No, I meant on your hard drive a folder for large files. The average user would never know they existed. The only difference to the power user would be that you have an extra folder to backup... or if it's all in a zip file that only CityDesk ever opens, then there is no difference.

It would publish just the way it does now.

www.marktaw.com
Wednesday, March 12, 2003

If CityDesk worked like that (large files outside the .cty), the problem would be:

Person A has some large files in a special folder on their PC which gets published along with the site.

Person B adds a new article to the site (editing the .cty file over the network) and publishes. CityDesk won't be able to see the large file folder, since it's not on this PC, and publishing wouldn't work.

Or, Person A copies the .cty file to a zip disk to take home. He tries to publish from home, but can't, because all the large files are back at work.

Everything would work fine if you're the only user, and you only publish from one computer, but not everybody uses CityDesk like that.

Darren Collins
Thursday, March 13, 2003

The subfolder would have to be in the same location as the .cty file.

//shared_folder/oursite.cty
//shared_folder/oursite/movie1.mov

Then CityDesk would have several menu-driven export options that would create a single file or multiple files for easy transport. Otherwise, CityDesk would operate exactly as it does now.

www.marktaw.com
Thursday, March 13, 2003

Sounds like a recipe for disaster if you've got more than one person involved in maintaining your site (or even just one non-technical person!).

If the motivation for storing these files outside the .cty is size, wouldn't it be better to just have CityDesk compress things within its database?

Darren Collins
Thursday, March 13, 2003

It's not size, it's that CD is a little clumsy with large files, it slows things down a lot.

The end user wouldn't know anything about the file structure any more than they do now.

www.marktaw.com
Thursday, March 13, 2003

Unless they want to edit, add, move or remove one of those large files. Or copy the site to take home. Or make a backup.

Darren Collins
Thursday, March 13, 2003

They would edit/add/move/remove via the CD GUI just like they do now.

Backups would be more difficult, but CD should have some sort of version/export/backup facility in it anyway. Just go to File/Export Backup and select a folder to back up to. Besides, with CD you don't want to have multiple copies of your site anyway.

If Fog wanted to keep everything in one file, they can put everything in a .zip file - the database, the binaries, everything... CityDesk would open the .zip file (with any file extention they choose) and the user would be none the wiser.

The power user would have access to their files, and if CityDesk stored everything in .xml files rather than an access database, templates & articles would also be accessible for easy transfer to another CityDesk file.

www.marktaw.com
Thursday, March 13, 2003

Just make it an option and let the user choose.

Lets not get stuck in "you can have any color Model T you want, as long as its black" mentality.

Chad Z. Hower
Tuesday, March 18, 2003

Nobody has to know about the file structure unless they look into it, it's a totally back-end thing.

www.marktaw.com
Tuesday, March 18, 2003

*  Recent Topics

*  Fog Creek Home