Evolve18 | Satish Ramade | The case for Self balanced AEM
•Transferir como PPTX, PDF•
1 gostou•118 visualizações
This document discusses the need for robust content review and quality assurance functionality in Adobe Experience Manager (AEM). It notes that AEM lacks the ability to properly test content outside of the authoring environment before publishing live. Common frustrations include content being published live by mistake or without approval. The document proposes a solution called Agile Zone ContentQA, which is described as a lightweight AEM add-on that provides a true production-like environment for content testing and approval without adding overhead or modifying the AEM codebase. It would leverage an existing or new publish server for content quality assurance and provide customized interfaces for authors, approvers, and publishers.
Recomendados
Mais conteúdo relacionado
Mais procurados
Mais procurados (19)
Semelhante a Evolve18 | Satish Ramade | The case for Self balanced AEM
Semelhante a Evolve18 | Satish Ramade | The case for Self balanced AEM (20)
Mais de Evolve The Adobe Digital Marketing Community
Mais de Evolve The Adobe Digital Marketing Community (20)
Último
Último (20)
Evolve18 | Satish Ramade | The case for Self balanced AEM
- 1. #evolve18 THE CASE FOR THE SELF-BALANCED AEM Satish Ramade Agile Zone Friday Aug 17, 2018
- 2. #evolve18 2 • Best in the industry for content authoring and publishing • Almost magical integration with assets and Adobe Creative Cloud products • Personalization possibilities right within AEM • Adobe Marketing Cloud products seamless integration • Architectural solutions at the topology level to support insane amount of contents • Flexible integration with eCommerce engines and components • AND MANY MANY MORE…… AEM STRENGTHS
- 3. #evolve18 3 The focus of this hour is • Highlight the absence of robust content review and quality assurance (QA) functionality and find the possible solutions AEM WEAKNESS
- 4. #evolve18 4 • If only I had a better way to test the content outside AEM Author before the content goes live... • I am tired of my content going LIVE by mistake and without approval... • I just wish I could test my site in PRODUCTION before it goes LIVE... • I wish I could make testing my site simpler in terms of the cost and process... • I wish I did not have to move the content between environments before making it public… CAN YOU IDENTIFY WITH THESE FRUSTRATIONS?
- 5. #evolve18 5 • AEM Authoring Interface is not a true end user LIVE-like interface to test the quality of my content and approver can approve them. • Content creation is in production LIVE environment -- Authors can potentially post changes to live site, without approval process. • Personalization does not work in authoring interface • Third-party integration is not available in Author server preview • Typically, vanity URLs are not used in authoring interface • Lack of clean support for the functional Approach to Content WHAT IS THE PROBLEM?
- 6. #evolve18 6 IT FEELS LIKE THIS!
- 7. #evolve18 7 I HOPE TO SEE THIS!
- 8. #evolve18 8 THE CASE FOR THE SELF-BALANCED AEM CONTENT REVIEW AND QUALITY ASSURANCE (QA)
- 9. #evolve18 9 • Treating code and content same create lot of complexity • This won’t work (or the least very difficult and slow) as the content repository size is getting bigger. • Infrastructure cost amounts to the times # of environments. • Content deployment process gets very complicated since it requires reference changes APPROACHES BOTTOM-UP APPROACH PROD PERF QA INT DEV Code & Content
- 10. #evolve18 10 • Introducing a dedicated production content QA stack can entail great hardware and support costs. • Content deployment process gets very complicated since it requires reference changes • This won’t work (or the least very difficult and slow) as the content repository size is getting bigger. APPROACHES SIDE-WAY APPROACH
- 11. #evolve18 11 • Publish to LIVE server is intercepted by workflow • Workflow triggers on content add/update to send the request for approval • Author preview mode is to QA and review the contents. • Workflow based solution gets impossible in most cases due to processing overhead on the Author and Publish servers • Testing production contents in Author server brings the Author server’s inherent issues like author interface, vanity URLs, personalization, etc. APPROACHES WORKFLOWS & PERMISSIONS
- 12. #evolve18 12 THE CASE FOR THE SELF-BALANCED AEM CONTENT REVIEW AND QUALITY ASSURANCE (QA) LETS TALK ABOUT THE BALANCE – THE SOLUTION
- 13. #evolve18 13 • Provides a true end-user LIVE environment for content QA and review - the same codebase, third-party integration, vanity URLs and personalization • A Functional Approach to Content Management - Author creates content, Approvers approves it and Publisher publishes content to make it LIVE. • Delivers the CMS separation of duties one would expect, distinguishing between Author, Approver, and Publisher functions. Must be flexible as well to combine these roles. • It should not add extra overhead in terms of cost and processes • Does not add additional processing load on the AEM author server THE SOLUTION
- 17. #evolve18 17 • A lightweight, non-intrusive AEM add-on with a small footprint that offers powerful functionality • The only off the self addon available in the market to address the content QA and review problem • Works within the AEM design and infrastructure without adding overhead or modifying the codebase • It leverages one of the existing or new production publish servers as content QA server • Provides enhanced interface for author and new UI for approver and publisher THE SOLUTION AGILE ZONE CONTENTQA
- 18. #evolve18 18 THE SOLUTION AGILE ZONE CONTENTQA
- 19. #evolve18 19 ABOUT US LinkedIn linkedin.com/in/satishramade Satish Ramade Title Technologist Contact Us www.agilezone.com Mail satish.ramade@agilezone.com Phone (248) 470-4862
Notas do Editor
- From the perspective of content publishing for the end user
- Lots of it as with any other software, but my focus in this hour is to highlight and find possible mitigation and solution of the absence of robust content review and quality assurance (QA) functionality that should occur in between author and publish functionality (before it makes it to the end user). AEM Author server tries its best to provide QA functionality although with tremendous inadequacy.
- Functional Approach to Content Management--The Author creates content, Approvers approve it and the Publisher publishes content to make it LIVE. Not a perceived but REAL separation of duties--distinguishing among Author, Approver, and Publisher functions
- Here is what it feels like to me. AEM Author and Publisher
- I would like to see a balance when it comes to Content quality assurance
- So lets try to make a case for the balanced system.
- Moving tens or hundreds of gigabytes of content between servers can be a time-consuming and risky proposition. Content migration complicates the process because of the reference changes between the content QA server and the author server. Typical workarounds requires expensive, complicated hardware solution & processes Overall, workarounds adds major hidden and upfront cost to AEM implementation and almost always makes the implementation extremely complex and hard to maintain
- It looks simple but people who are using it can testify the woes of this solution
- So lets try to make a case for the balanced system.
- So with all seriousness, this would a balancing act