FileVista Source and Standard .Net 4.5
Question asked by Nirav - 6/10/2020 at 10:23 PM
Answered
We have website in normal ASP.Net - Standard  .Net 4.5 -  ( not to be confused with .Net core ). Is File Vista  source code compatible to be integrate into it or it needs .Net Core solution ?

4 Replies

Reply to Thread
0
Cem Alacayir Replied
Employee Post
FileVista currently still is a .NET Framework 4.0+ application.

Note that since Version 7.34.0 - October 31, 2019:

  • Changed: For building source code package, from now on Visual Studio 2017+ (15.3+) is required (due to new sdk-style project files for supporting multiple target frameworks). Note that this is not related to consuming binaries, they still support Visual Studio 2010+. This info is only for “Source License” owners.

FileVista Source code includes:
  • GleamTech.FileVista project (source included - net40 target)
  • GleamTech.FileVista.Core project (source included - net40 target)
  • GleamTech.FileUltimate project (source included - net40 target)
  • GleamTech.Common.dll (only binary - net40 target)
  • GleamTech.DocumentUltimate.dll (only binary - net40 target)
  • GleamTech.ImageUltimate.dll (only binary - net40 target)
  • GleamTech.VideoUltimate.dll (only binary - net40 target)
The reason you need Visual Studio 2017+ (15.3+), is that GleamTech.FileUltimate project is new sdk-style project because it also supports netstandard20 but in its own source code package (target removed when included in FileVista source code package as it's not needed).

0
Nirav Replied
Hello, We are interested in purchasing FileVista with full source code, which might need modifications in Common.dll or DocumentUltimate , ImageUltimate and VideoUltimate code changes to fit them in our solution and support our own custom file storage provider with our business logic and custom encryption etc on top of it. Looking at current binaries in trial mode, I am not able to find any way which helps to extend FileVista and create our own file system provider with all that. Is there option to purchase full source code of all of them instead just binaries ?
0
Cem Alacayir Replied
Employee Post Marked As Answer
Regarding GleamTech.Common.dll;

Starting with v7.34.0, source code package does not include source of GleamTech.Common (formerly named GleamTech.Core before v7.35.0). 

This is because needing to include both signed and unsigned DLLs was increasing the package size. For example, if we include only signed GleamTech.DocumentUltimate then it can’t reference the unsigned DLL produced by GleamTech.Common project. So all DLLs need to be signed. Unsigned DLLs can reference signed ones but not vice versa. 

Also GleamTech.Common, includes stuff like license logic and it’s not meant to be modified by users. So you shouldn’t be worried, GleamTech.FileVista, GleamTech.FileVista.Core and GleamTech.FileUltimate projects are sufficient to do modifications. GleamTech.Common is just a utility project which everything depends on (think it like Newtonsoft.Json) 

Regarding "support our own custom file storage provider"; this is possible by inheriting abstract classes GleamTech.FileSystems.FileSystem and GleamTech.FileSystems.Location. We can provide source code of PhysicalFileSystem, AmazonS3FileSystem etc for reference.
0
Nirav Replied
Hello to elaborate further.

We have customized logic for our File System objects which resided in AWS S3, Server File System and other cloud on case by case basis. Each file and folder metadata is stored in custom database table and its encrypted object is stored in S3 or other locations. Also there is business logic in place to show specific files and folder to specific group of users only. This is different way implemented then how currently FileVista's S3 provider is working. Current code of GleamTech.FileSystems.AmazonS3  doesnt allow any such business logic in configurable way. I am not able to find way either in which we can create and configure FileVista to use our own code something like  Custom.FileSystems.CustomS3 to use as source to get files and folders data.

Reply to Thread