Pete

Without checking, I would guess it's locked down on purpose. If you could easily access other user's sessions you are reducing security in some way.What you really want is something like these forums I'm guessing and even that is a bit of a cheat. Because no web server can possibly know if you're still there or not until you interact with it (like click a link or something) the forums store a last active time for each user and the "users online" list shows everyone with a last active time within the last 15 minutes. It sounds like Adrian's solution should work though if that ts field in the database is updated with every action. I would change 60 to 30 or 15 though personally to get users who actually navigated to a different page more recently.

You've not really explained why though. Comparing to another CMS isn't an explanation of the benefits. In fact, the topic linked to above states positives and negatives of SQLite and I'm personally not a fan of some of the negatives. It would be nice to have support for other databases but is there really the demand for it yet? I'm just asking an innocent question

When you say Ajax in your first post, do you mean API? I don't see any Ajax.

Hmm... didn't work with a single image for me. Do you just put in "image" (my field name) to have it display?

Awesome

Given the latest update on the dev branch (database backup functionality) I don't think it will be long before someone comes up with a nice interface for backups, but it won't be by me. I'm sure something will appear soon though.

Did you manage to get it to actually display an image?

Matthew - The categories were whittled down from larger numbers of systems, as voted for by people visiting and clicking, so this still applies: https://processwire.com/talk/topic/7328-critics-choice-cms-awards/?p=70570

Yup.

Thanks Antti - that sorts out preventing it from being removed - if I make it system and permanent then that's great. I guess to stop it being added to any more templates and hiding it from the field list when adding fields to template I would have to use some hooks, which is fine.

I'm working on an inputfield and fieldtype as part of a larger module. I want it installed once, applied to a template and for the field to not be used anywhere else - so not appearing on the list of available fields, not removeable from the template in question etc. Is this actually possible? The reason behind this is that I still want to allow for custom fields elsewhere in the template, but this field must not be removed. If not I could be more strict, not allow other fields to be added to the template and make it a system template. I guess this would prevent people from uninstalling the module too which is my other concern? It's basically for storing things like financial data and other stuff that should never be removed so if they were able to remove the field it would be potentially disastrous and also the rest of the module would fall apart I would imagine. Any suggestions?

pwFoo - you can't keep asking the same question about the database and expecting a reasonable answer. What data is in the database and what you're doing with it has as much impact on performance as the structure. Also, uniquely with Processwire, the "every field is a database table" approach could be slower in some areas, but since PW only grabs the data you need it could be quicker too (as in if your template file wants only the data from two fields but behind the scenes the API has to make two queries, those two queries could still be faster than pulling data from another CMS with a table containing dozens of fields. On the flip side there will certainly be occasions where a single table in another system will be faster than many tables in ProcessWire - depending on how well you put together your fields of course as it's up to you to make sure you do it efficiently. There is no easy answer and the only way to really test this properly is to build the exact same functionality as another system and see what the difference is. As for the underlying structure? I should imagine most of the frameworks are built for some sort of speed, but they're all abstracting away from PHP so if raw speed is what you're after and every millisecond counts then the best speed you'll see is probably to build something just in PHP bespoke to every situation. Of course that's a little crazy for a lot of projects as it will just take too long and requires you to know a lot more about PHP. I would just keep going with Processwire, take advantage of things like Procache and/or other caching methods where appropriate and it can be lightning fast for your end users. If you use Procache on more static pages you can essentially be skipping PHP and MySql completely and serving just HTML which is the quickest for your visitors, though certainly not appropriate for all pages.

If you're doing it in the PHP area are you doing this? return $page->children;

That should work nicely.

Enter all the heights as pages and make a Page field that renders as a Select field would be my suggestion. I think you've used Page fields before so I'm a little confused by the question as you're almost answering it as you're asking it if you see what I mean?

There is a plugin, but I'm also aware that a new version of the forum software is out in the next few months. Couple that with the fact that Google can't see hidden forums (for commercial modules) and I'm not sure it's the best solution. Still, there is a plugin for the forums that's a whole $6 so I might look into that, but there's also a built-in integration with Sphinx search to look into that might be more suitable. Lots of options - I just need to find time to look at them. And then there's the possibility that some people still won't search but we can keep steering them gently in the right direction

IF there is a template file for those pages. Often for select fields I create a Tools template which is just an empty template with no file. That way I can set up things like selects (where I don't want them to be pages on the site) and not worry about anyone guessing the URL. I always set them to hidden. Unpublished implies you're not wanting to use a page yet.

This is going to be really useful for me too - on larger sites I often remember to upload changes to template files but miss a critical change I made in one field or forgetting to add a field to a template. Obviously it's not going to stop me being absent-minded from time to time, but it will help ensure I've got things configured the same over dev and live

If you're building a member/customer site though and are dealing with real names you might want to use email address and password as there are many John Smith's in England for example

@argos - there are many, many people who have learned it and understood it here that did not consider themselves programmers to begin with, so I think it all depends on every person's ability to grasp new concepts or languages and as human beings we'll all have different experiences there. However saying all of those things in your posts because you personally didn't get into it seems a little unfair. It's not for people who want to plug it in and go - it's for people who want to learn at least some of the basics of web development. As you say there are plenty of other systems out there for various needs, but just last night with a few choice fieldtypes and a bunch of templates I built the structure of a site that would have either been impossible in another CMS or taken me weeks of wrestling/coding. It took me 3 hours and not a single line of code was touched and the end result is a really nice page structure with intuitive templates for entering the data. The code will come in the frontend templates, but the backend is all the client should ever have to worry about. I would be very interested to know what could be done to improve the many documents and tutorials to better help people getting stuck, but I very much doubt the coding aspect can be made any simpler - it's already simpler than working with databases directly, so I can only imagine more tutorials might be the answer?

Ha, yep, definitely - didn't spot those! In the case of image fields it's not until you enter the minimum dimensions that the error goes away.

There's an issue on the latest dev where if you switch the built-in Images field to user CropImage, it says it's not configured correctly until you set the new minimum image size parameters. As a workaround I set them to zero, but the interface suggests you can leave them blank. Not sure if this is an issue with this module or the dev branch?

Adrian - you may want to remove all the downloads of versions from the previous page and instead direct users to the modules page. I was about to download the first one without reading any further

I think the idea is possible but it would have to make certain assumptions about what people want to do (favourite would be to provide the most common output). For example with an images field storing multiple images I might suggest they get outputted as thumbnails in a UL element and have thumbnails link to larger versions. Anything like this would also be best if it spat out comments in the template as to how to change things or rather link to relevant parts of the documentation and API. It's not impossible to do, but at some point you're just going to be recreating what's already in docs like the Planets tutorial, but possibly without people bothering to read and learn what's going on. I guess what I mean is there's always a trade-off when lowering the barrier to entry, so perhaps if the auto-generated templates were very well commented that would make up for it.

So many times I've worked into the evenings and been stuck on an issue for hours. The answer almost always comes to me as I'm standing in the shower the next morning, then I look at the code (Data - haha) and do this: