Pete

I think part of the problem is it would be a big job for relatively little gain to build a new CMS on top of the core. ProcessWire's admin isn't 100% perfect for every requirement, but it would be easier to build modules or make suggestions to improve things than create another CMS using the framework provided by the API. That said, for very specific jobs you could easily build a front-end control panel providing pretty bespoke functionality without the need to tinker with modules and just not use the admin at all. For example, a real estate directory site where you're inviting many companies to submit their data - you'd only want a simple login area, list and upload form and you might choose to do something like that with frontend templates and the API rather than in the admin (though you could do it with both). I think Soma's post that you referred to is more saying "it's possible to create your own CMS interface on top of the API", not that there's necessarily a reason to do it, or anyone out there with enough time on their hands to recreate all the functionality their own way

I'm confused... it comes with a CMS when you install it

See updated first post. I'll post more when we're closer to starting the process. @Apeisa - just been enjoying some good downpours the last few days, but wouldn't mind the sun making a return

We will be performing a forum upgrade tomorrow if final testing goes well today. Why are we doing this? The current version is over a year old and the developers have since released a new major version - in fact they're now up to 4.1.x whilst we're still on the 3.x branch. They will not be supplying bug fixes or security patches for much longer. There are a lot of nice changes (and some confusing ones - more on that later) such as responsive design leading to a more complete mobile experience. We can also leverage some caching options to make things even faster when browsing the forums. What does this mean for you? Unfortunately there are a number of down sides to this: The forums will have to be taken offline twice for approx 20-30 minutes each time for several hours. During the upgrade process, the post content gets completely rebuilt and whilst this is in progress things look a mess, code samples look broken etc etc. We think it's better to take it offline than show broken code samples! We've decided to leave the forums open as the forums still technically work, new posts aren't affected, and we need the shop to stay online as well. There will be a learning curve with the new layout, but I'll do my best to post a "this is where to find stuff" post right here after the upgrade. Bizarrely the "best answer" feature has been replaced with a Stack Overflow-style voting feature which doesn't work everywhere we currently have the best answer feature turned on, so we will be making adjustments to some forums. You also can't make the first post in a Q&A forum topic the "chosen answer" which is a bit silly, but I'll be looking for a workaround for that. Possibly the biggest annoyance is that all unread posts you may currently have will get marked as read after the upgrade. Since this forum is a complete rewrite they've been unable (or possibly unwilling?) to do a complete migration of all data to the new version. There are plus sides though, right? Yep, there are: The reason the post content gets rebuilt is so that it's all stored as HTML in the database rather than BBCode that has to be parsed and isn't upgrade-proof. They've also finally stopped using their own-brand post editor and gone with CKEditor, so upgrades should be a little less chaotic as custom tags have been replaced with universally-recognised data-attributes. Theoretically this means that I have less of a headache if they choose to do another complete rewrite in 5 years' time. The code-base has been rewritten and they've removed some of the less used features to speed things up, plus it'll be compatible with PHP 7 soon which means that theoretically everything on the main ProcessWire site can be updated to work with PHP 7 soon and benefit from some nice speed increases. We should be good to stay on the 4.x branch for several years. I'm not anticipating the devs rewriting the codebase for at least another 4-5 years as they've decided to future-proof it as much as possible. Did I mention upgrades will be easier for me to manage in future? Wouldn't it be easier to build a ProcessWire forum module with all the same features? I do think this from time to time, but to be perfectly honest it takes a team of people at least a year to come up with everything you see here. I'm sure I could emulate much of it pretty quickly if I was paid to do it full-time for a year (including BETA testing etc) since the ProcessWire API and module structure is much more sane, but I might also go crazy in the process One day maybe... --- So at some point tomorrow, you will see a message here saying we're upgrading and to check back later. I can't give a precise time estimate, but it is a lengthy process - I would expect it to be at least 6 hours starting around 10am GMT - fortunately most of that is waiting for content to automatically rebuild - and then I have to apply some manual tweaks afterwards which will take about 30 minutes. Schedule TBC - hopefully still tomorrow - some of the final preparations are taking a little longer. Downtime will be kept to 2 blocks of 20-30 minutes maximum if all goes well. Existing post content will look quite odd for the duration, but new posts will be absolutely fine and we'll fix up the old ones afterwards.

@rick - I removed the links as advertising because your email address led me to a Youtube video about a product and it seemed a bit like advertising rather than relevant to the 2 year old request Nik originally made. If you do have some code and want to write an integration tutorial as suggested by adrian that's fine - please go ahead - but outright advertising is prohibited by the community guidelines: https://processwire.com/talk/topic/8234-community-rules-guidelines/

And 3.x in fact - I've got it running on an installation there with no issues (auto-compiling for namespaces nicely).

Good point. Seems to work well enough for the dev directory. Let me have a look at what might be involved.

If you have a list of a few already, please feel free to post here for now. What would be nice in the near future is if the site cam make use of the ProDrafts module so people can submit proposed changes to pages easily, but that could be a bit hard to manage and open to abuse.

Yep, just change it to the normal domain and it'll show correctly as long as the From address is the same as the MG domain. What I do worry about, and it is a lesser issue you only run into when switching between WireMail modules, is that they don't all have the same functions or parameters so it's just something to check when you switch. A simple bit of search and replace in your favourite editor and you're sorted though

I think this only usually comes up in more advanced use cases. I can only think of a handful of times I've needed to do this and it's always outside of "simple" websites. I see your point though - something simpler than having to use $database->query() etc would be nice, like a helper for the more common things like getting just a title and ID in an array without loading pages into memory, something like $pages->queryArray('template=name, fields=f1:f2:f3, group=whatever, sort=f2'); I mean, you're nearly at a normal query there, so not sure how much merit there is in that, but there might be some value in having that automatically return your array or being able to iterate over it nice and cleanly might be worthwhile. I'm not sure though - the "long way" is only 1 or 2 lines longer, but maybe something that looks more familiar to the rest of the API for simpler things might be better

...but not the normal issue I have a situation where in really remote areas an intranet site loads extremely slow due to slow connection. I've implemented jQuery to stop the submit button from being able to be clicked more than once, and the user tells me they're definitely not spamming the button anyway, but on their occasionally really slow connection I sometimes receive a few dozen identical form submissions. As such I don't think a JS solution is likely to work and I need something clever in the form itself. Would it be enough to send a random string in a hidden field and check if that string has been used before? My only worry about doing it that way is I'd need to store that string with the form entry which seems like unnecessary overhead. The other way is with CSRF, but I don't want to show a nasty CSRF error - just a blank "this form has been submitted" message.. EDIT: Turns out I can just use an adapted version of this and use CSRF - thanks Soma! https://gist.github.com/somatonic/5233338

Ah, sweet! So that was added not long ago then, like Ryan once again knew I'd need this soon (get out of my head! ).

How do you see those extra permissions, or do you need to add them manually?

Hi guys Here's an interesting one - on a site I have 3 custom roles: staff, customer, administrator Now administrator isn't the same as superuser, but they have been given permission to add and edit users via the "user-admin" role. Obviously they can't make themselves or anyone else a superuser - that role is hidden from them by ProcessWire already. You also can't edit superusers unless you are one yourself. What I want to do though is when they edit a user, hide "administrator" as an option for them so they can only add/edit "staff" and "customer" accounts, but there doesn't seem to be anything built-in to allow this. Does anyone know how I would go about that or if I'm just missing a hidden permission called something like "protected role"? Something like that permission could make it so that a user with that certain role can only be assigned that role or edited by a superuser

They way they handle it is mentioned about a third of the way down this page: http://flarum.org/docs/installation/ I think this sort of "installation" really is just getting the files to the right place, then running the normal installer, a bit like grabbing a copy straight to the server from Github, but different

If you're logging in with "Sradesign" as the username, it looks like that's just your display name and your username is actually your real name - I just checked this in the forum admin. So it should be one or the other I think.

Can you let us know the web host too?

I would suggest considering moving a smaller site where this happens regularly to another server with a different host if you can to see if that resolves things. That would pinpoint a server config issue right away if the issue is happening a lot.

+1 for split button. @Ryan - they have those in getuikit

I think if you change fuel() to \ProcessWire\fuel() on line 250 that might work, or add namespace ProcessWire; to the top of the spex.module file just after the opening PHP tag. If it works, credit goes to Teppo: https://processwire.com/talk/topic/12304-pw-3-devns-cli-not-recognising-pw-classes/?p=114026

What a great way to lose a lot of business - causing hassle for thousands of existing customers! I get that there are always reasons for making hard decisions like this, but the way they've done it (and potentially the timescale if you have dozens of client accounts) sucks! Their new $20 plan also only gets you 25k emails a month and Mailgun gets 50k for the same price. I wonder which I'll be looking at next...

Lowercase and normal case seemed to already be in place for those two (perhaps Ryan fixed this before I got to look at it) but just in case I added all uppercase as an option as well.

It is probably because it's used by a small fraction of businesses. Way under 1%. It's not a big enough name yet for it to appear in many job ads I think. But one day... The job ads that would be applicable for someone who knows ProcessWire would be the ones that either don't list a preferred CMS at all, or if they list a CMS they put "or similar" - I've seen plenty of those. "WP or similar" which is your opening to go to an interview and open their eyes to the endless possibilities and lack of security flaws (in ProcessWire, in case you thought I was talking about the other one ). I think that dev agencies looking for new staff tend to ask here, as that's far more useful. We've seen it happen a few times before, and that's only the ones we hear about on the forums.

Hi all It's been long overdue, but I have approved all pending profiles (well, except one where they were just trying to advertise some database app that had nothing to do with ProcessWire whatsoever!). @rick - it would be nice to do this. I will add it to my list of things to do. Just today I added a manual link in the Dev Directory admin to check the user's "sites using PW" against isit.pw to save me some time so I can certainly see the benefit of automated checks for existing members in the directory too. Can you let me know if that user's website link is still broken please? @incognito.ms - apologies, I was way behind on directory approvals and your profile has now been approved. @Sephiroth - think of it this way, you have the Nigerian market all to yourself then at the moment There are more planned updates to the directory in coming months, and I appreciate everyone taking the time to submit so many sites for verification. I would suggest you all list your sites in the Sites Directory as I can see one or two that aren't there. I appreciate this isn't always possible due to client confidentiality though, but more exposure for your skills where possible can't be a bad thing

I don't share the warm fuzzy feelings I get when I use people's modules nearly often enough, so I just left a comment on the module directory page. The short version is that it's saving me from having to create custom modules for a lot of places where I'd want to output some custom, processed output when editing a page and it is streamlining some of the steps I need to perform when approving entries in the dev directory, so thanks for this!