Leaderboard

I get that the gist of this thread is "WP bad", but to be fair I've ran relatively often into the opposite issue in ProcessWire: an image or file that should've been uploaded once and then reused is instead uploaded to a whole bunch of separate pages, using loads of unnecessary disk space. ProcessWire doesn't by itself create a lot of unnecessary variations, but it is not uncommon occurrence either: years of code changes combined with badly configured image fields (no limit for image dimensions) can lead to major disk bloat. Worse yet is when someone decides that a file/image that is separately uploaded all around the place now needs to be updated everywhere. Oh the joy! Long story short: there are cases for and against both central media/asset management and page based media/asset management, neither are perfect. Now what is indeed suboptimal is the way WordPress handles variations: they need to be globally registered, are created on upload (whether you need them or not), and won't be (re)created automatically if registered or changed later. This can absolutely lead to unnecessary disk usage, and on the other hand means that you may not have the variation you were looking for available, or it may not be what you expected it to be. But again, each approach/architecture has upsides and downsides ? -- By the way, I'm not generally against bashing [insert a CMS or any other product here] or venting frustrations about it, but I do think we should try to be fair. WP gets a lot of bad rep for a good reason, there are definitely issues and shortcomings, but it also gets blamed for legacy/aging custom (site/theme specific) code, overuse of third party plugins, outdated third party plugins, etc. None of these are core issues, and it's not really fair to blame them on WP ?

I'm off work this week, so I don't have any new ProcessWire updates, but just wanted to wish you a Happy New Year! Looking forward to a great 2024!

Sure, but even taking small blocks to move to classes is not really usable. The box I took as example is just a bit of UIkit configuration in my project, mainly overriding UIkit variables. Depending of CSS framework used it will be different.

Thanks @ryan. Thanks everything you have done. Happy new year to you and this amazing community from afar. Gideon So

On my previous project, a designer created a template on https://www.figma.com/. You can export design to CSS, I add a look at this code and it's a terrible thing. ? For example, this simple box... ...generates this mess: /* Frame 232 */ position: absolute; width: 460px; height: 580px; left: 490px; top: 425px; /* Ombre */ box-shadow: 0px 0px 10px 5px rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.5); /* Offre Gratuite */ position: absolute; width: 460px; height: 580px; left: 0px; top: 0px; /* Ombre */ box-shadow: 0px 0px 10px 5px rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.5); /* Rectangle 6 */ position: absolute; left: 0px; right: 0px; top: 0px; bottom: 0px; /* Blanc */ background: #FFFFFF; border-radius: 10px; /* Pour accéder à notre outil, veuillez vous identifier */ position: absolute; height: 171px; left: 108px; right: 108px; top: 86px; /* Desktop - Texte courant */ font-family: 'Roboto'; font-style: normal; font-weight: 400; font-size: 18px; line-height: 21px; display: flex; align-items: center; text-align: center; /* Bleu foncé */ color: #02171C; /* Titre */ position: absolute; height: 86px; left: 0px; right: 0px; top: 0px; /* Rouge */ background: #E74342; border-radius: 10px 10px 0px 0px; /* J’ai déjà un compte */ position: absolute; height: 26px; left: 0px; right: 0px; top: 30px; /* Desktop - Mise en exergue */ font-family: 'Roboto'; font-style: normal; font-weight: 700; font-size: 22px; line-height: 26px; /* identical to box height */ display: flex; align-items: center; text-align: center; /* Blanc */ color: #FFFFFF; /* Bouton */ position: absolute; height: 55px; left: 0px; right: 0px; top: 485px; /* Frame 3 */ /* Auto layout */ display: flex; flex-direction: row; align-items: flex-start; padding: 15px 23px; gap: 10px; position: absolute; left: 23.48%; right: 23.48%; top: 0%; bottom: 0%; /* Rouge */ background: #E74342; border-radius: 30px; /* Se connecter */ width: 198px; height: 25px; font-family: 'Gilroy-Bold'; font-size: 20px; line-height: 23px; display: flex; align-items: center; text-align: center; /* Blanc */ color: #FFFFFF; /* Inside auto layout */ flex: none; order: 0; flex-grow: 0; /* Group 202 */ position: absolute; width: 380px; height: 85px; left: 40px; top: 230px; /* Identifiant * */ position: absolute; width: 380px; height: 30px; left: 40px; top: 230px; /* Desktop - Texte courant bold */ font-family: 'Roboto'; font-style: normal; font-weight: 700; font-size: 18px; line-height: 21px; /* Bleu foncé */ color: #02171C; /* Frame 3 */ box-sizing: border-box; position: absolute; height: 55px; left: 8.7%; right: 8.7%; top: 260px; /* Blanc */ background: #FFFFFF; /* Gris */ border: 1px solid #5E7F8C; border-radius: 30px; /* Votre identifiant */ position: absolute; height: 21px; left: 30px; right: 59px; top: 17px; /* Desktop - Texte courant */ font-family: 'Roboto'; font-style: normal; font-weight: 400; font-size: 18px; line-height: 21px; /* identical to box height */ display: flex; align-items: center; /* Gris */ color: #5E7F8C; /* Group 203 */ position: absolute; width: 380px; height: 85px; left: 40px; top: 335px; /* Mot de passe * */ position: absolute; width: 380px; height: 30px; left: 40px; top: 335px; /* Desktop - Texte courant bold */ font-family: 'Roboto'; font-style: normal; font-weight: 700; font-size: 18px; line-height: 21px; /* Bleu foncé */ color: #02171C; /* Frame 3 */ box-sizing: border-box; position: absolute; height: 55px; left: 8.7%; right: 8.7%; top: 365px; /* Blanc */ background: #FFFFFF; /* Gris */ border: 1px solid #5E7F8C; border-radius: 30px; /* Votre identifiant */ position: absolute; height: 21px; left: 30px; right: 59px; top: 17px; /* Desktop - Texte courant */ font-family: 'Roboto'; font-style: normal; font-weight: 400; font-size: 18px; line-height: 21px; /* identical to box height */ display: flex; align-items: center; /* Gris */ color: #5E7F8C; /* Mot de passe oublié ? */ position: absolute; width: 380px; height: 30px; left: 40px; top: 440px; /* Desktop - Texte courant bold */ font-family: 'Roboto'; font-style: normal; font-weight: 700; font-size: 18px; line-height: 21px; /* Rouge */ color: #E74342; Everything is absolute, font-family and other attributes are duplicated everywhere... There's almost nothing to keep in the final code. I wouldn't trust an AI generated code, and when you need to make changes you first have to learn what the AI created and to adapt to it, not my taste. I prefer to have full control on this and know what I'm doing.

Thanks, @ryan! Being here for so many years it feels like home. And everyone in the forums like relatives, even though I never seen them in person and only imagine them as their avatars living somewhere around the globe) So these "winter holidays" celebration posts are kind of like a family reunion, when everybody gathers at a holiday table after a not so easy year passed. Happy new year to everyone! Let it be a better one! С наступающим! Всего хорошего и доброго! ???

Recently I transferred a website from WP to PW. First I had to clone the WP site in order to install it on a different hosting company. It turned out, that this WP installation (about 6 main pages and 20 subpages) with a few images, had the size of about 1 GB! This video helped me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIurrwfsCOg&list=LL&index=32&t=474s I found in the upload directory a lot of 7000px wide jpgs. Every time an image is uploaded, WP generates about 4 or 5 different size variations and keeps them all in the same directory. There were plugins installed, that all begged for an upgrade. Everywhere in the backend constantly informations from different sources popped up. After I finished the new website in PW, I compared the amount of the generated html code. The PW code was about 80% smaller.

In the last couple of weeks I've been working on the page versions support in ProcessWire (recap here and here). This week the new PagesVersions module was committed to the core. Though please consider it very much "beta" at this stage. Along with this, the core dev branch version was bumped to 3.0.232. The API reference page for PagesVersions is now live here: https://processwire.com/api/ref/pages-versions/. Note that the module is not installed by default, but once running 3.0.232, it can be installed by going in your admin to Modules > Wire > Pages > PagesVersions. In addition, a related development module named PagesVersionsPro has also been released. This module uses the new API from the core PagesVersions module. This module will eventually be merged with or replace ProDrafts. The new PagesVersionsPro support board and module is currently visible to ProDrafts, ProFields and ProDevTools subscribers here. Unlike ProDrafts, PagesVersionsPro gets all of its version abilities from the core, and instead just focuses on providing an interactive interface to them in the page editor. To word it another way, the module does not extend the PagesVersions module in the way that ListerPro extends Lister. Instead, it just provides a web interface for it. I think this is a better long term and more sustainable strategy for handling version support. Core version 3.0.232 also adds version support for nested repeaters and FieldsetPage fields. Support was added in those Fieldtypes directly. Still remaining are PageTable (core) and Table (ProFields), both of which will need their own implementations for versions like Repeater and FieldsetPage needed. But following that, there won't be any unsupported fieldtypes to my knowledge. ProcessWire Weekly published its 500th issue! Congratulations and big thanks to @teppo for his incredible work with ProcessWire Weekly, it is truly outstanding! Thanks for reading and have a great weekend!

Love what I am seeing here. Having the ability to clone an old version into a new page might also be handy.

@ Ryan Yes, I had understood that there was a question about whether or not to integrate several profiles into the install, and it would indeed be good if at least the beginner version were equipped with it, because what could be more frustrating than having to install again to visit the other profiles? I think I read somewhere that it's now possible to install another profile even after installation is complete. I'll have to find those conversations again to test this procedure myself. ?

I think it's a good point, and prior to more recent versions, PW included several site profiles. But by and large the community preferred PW to be slim and not include all the site profiles, so we changed it to just include 1 profile (the minimal blank profile). This is the preference of established users of ProcessWire. But for new users that might not already be familiar with PW, I think having something more for a site profile is preferable. The solution is for PW's installer to be able to download the other profiles automatically if the user wants them. I think this was brought up before, but I haven't done it yet, though perhaps should soon.