Pete

Nice, functional, fast site - I like it. That's ProCache!

I think it's more that so many of us hadn't thought about this before but can instantly see the benefits ryan, not that we've necessarily all been waiting for it before now. I think that's testament to how well it's been implemented.

Great addition, thanks ryan or building it and Antti/Avoine for sponsoring it! It can make several of my more complicated forms on some projects a whole lot shorter and more legible now And like many others, I marvel at how well ryan's initial versions of amazing features just seem to be so polished!

It's all possible in ProcessWire, but that looks like a more complex site than most. To my mind it would almost be easier to map out the templates on paper first to work out which fields you need for which templates and how they interact, then we could get a better idea of time involved. The problem from an outsider's perspective is that to me it looks almost over-complicated in places (so many options for searches that might be able to be streamlined using something like $pages->find('template=images|contributors|locations|discussions, keywords%=your search phrase') for example to search a common keyword field across multiple templates, assuming you have that field against many templates).That took me a bit off track, but the rest of the site looks quite large and very bespoke is what I'm getting at - it would be very difficult for an outsider to give you any idea of timescale to reproduce it in ProcessWire. Having said that, if I was going to do anything as complicated as that myself then I would be 100% confident that you could build it all with ProcessWire. The sky is the limit, it just depends how much time you have

I have just one problem with this approach. It's perfect for what I need for a site where customers can buy things/services as every email address is unique, however a username might not be! For example, if I have two customers called John Smith sign up, I have to do a check during registration to make sure that if there is a John Smith already that a number gets appended to their username (so john-smith-1 or something like that). Feels a bit messy, but there really isn't any way around that I guess? I'm being too picky though I think as even when a user edits their profile they don't need to know that behind the scenes their user page is stored with a name of john-smith-1 Okay, I'll shut up now since I've talked myself out of actually having a problem!

Cool Errm... many Mac apps aren't, and vice-versa.

I always forget about that - another good reason!

That's the best way to go about it - you can then take it further if you ever need to by doing searched on pages with a certain colour etc. Might not be that likely in your case, but if it was for a clothing website for example then something that lets the user filter by red clothes if it's their favourite colour might be desirable. Sometimes it can feel a little overkill to do it this way, but it always leaves you with future possibilities rather than just static values

Yes. You can create a textarea field and select to use Markdown as the textformatter. You can also use BBCode or Textile, but Markdown is a core module.

That script is basically just iterating through the files and folders and parsing, much as you would do with the script I linked. What we need to see to be able to help further is maybe a screenshot of the folder structure of the site (is it many levels deeo or are all pages in one folder for example) and perhaps a test page or two - without those I'm not sure we can suggest anything else! Iterating through the folders and using a script like I linked to or even a regular expression is as hands-off as you'll get, but if we can have the information I just mentioned we can probably hook you up with some code

Here's a link to a conversation about parsing HTML pages - I used the script in question and it is very good, as long as each HTML page follows sensible structures: http://processwire.com/talk/topic/569-php-simple-html-dom

I try and back it all up to Brain 1.0, but I think Brain needs an upgrade

It's whichever version is under the Dev branch on Github - the verisons in the readme or anywhere else in the Dev branch are irrelevant. The point about the Dev branch on Github is that it will always contain the very latest code regardless of whether a version number has changed or not - if ryan changed the version number every time he committed a batch of new code we'd be on version 2.3.712 as he has uploaded something new to the dev branch 712 separate times since v2.3 was created (or maybe since 2.2... can't remember if this was a new Git repo for 2.2 or 2.3). These might be a few updated files or just a single line of code, but every time new code is pushed to Github it's a separate "commit". Long story short, version numbers don't change with every commit to Github - they change when those commits are merged with the stable (Master on Github) branch. The dev version isn't really mentioned on the PW site itself as it's for developers who wish to tinker and other curious parties and is not generally recommended for live sites - it's "beta" really, at least the changes are - but some of us can't help ourselves

I think I've been relying on pen and paper too much and need to look up a lot of these

It will read in anything from the mailbox and delete the emails once it's done, so be careful with that!

I've done what horst suggested before to be honest - you don't have to worry too much about the headaches of duplicate data as all you're doing is creating a dummy PW user account and the way I did it was have one extra integer field in the PW user template to store the ID of the website account - simple as that You could then take that further if different user groups from the intranet system have different access rights on the website. I would personally make it do some checks during PW login so that: If someone enters a username and password, it checks the intranet DB and if it finds the details there but on in PW then create an account If someone is in the intranet DB but is now a disabled account, disable them in PW (unpublish) If their email has changed in the intranet DB, change their PW email address Definitely do the same with password Basically you're always authenticating against the intranet database first, and you can take it further by mapping different user groups or more as you see fit. It's the only way I'm slowly able to migrate sections of a large intranet I custom-coded several years ago to ProcessWire - so I can regain my sanity and roll out new features in a fraction of the time

Hi Alan It should work with a Gmail account, though I've not tried yet - all mine have rather too much mail in to give it a go without consuming vast amounts of server memory

Thanks - I'll make a note to reactivate it tomorrow with the new version

Well I still like MODx though I don't use it any more

Hmm... well if they share most of the code then this might be a candidate for a module that contains the core functionality for CRUD and PW pages, then an add-on module for external DBs? You wouldn't want to be duplicating too much code - have a look at dependencies if you've not read up on that already: http://processwire.com/talk/topic/778-module-dependencies/ - then you can fire up the main module from the external table version. You might just find though that it is easier to make it as one module (I suspect this might be the case actually given the chance of code duplication).

Good to hear

Very good point - I hadn't thought of it that way. Though a lot of that remaining percentage will be different languages - ASP etc, or even just plain HTML, but yes it does prove that it's not the "main" tool. I still would like to say "19% of what?" though. Is there an explanation somewhere as to how that figure was reached? As far as I know there is no definitive list of all the websites there are on the web, so as mentioned earlier it has most likely been taken from a measureable set of data somewhere so it would be interesting to see what that dataset is.

There is already a log module for Processwire in the directory that will help - can't remember the name at the moment (on my mobile) but it logs admin actions or page alterations or something. It created a LOT of logs in conjunction with this module - dozens of pages where it published and unpublished pages. I hope I still have the logs, if not I'll reinstall both modules and let you know as I've been having this issue too.

I don't think anyone has suggested it's not easy to learn. I think the experiences in this topic (mine anyway) come from trying to make it or a module do slightly more than they are designed to. So much can be done in PW without modules in a short space of time once you get going, whereas everything extra seems to require a module in WP, and good luck tweaking them to your needs if they don't do what you want. That's just my experience mind, and I'll admit I've never spent a huge amount of time trying to get to grips with WP purely because it didn't ever seem to fit my needs well enough.

Love it I was about to say that it wouldn't work for my idea in the other thread where I was talking about using something like this for repeater fields, but then I just saw the cell types on offer here and my jaw hit the flaw: http://handsontable.com/demo/renderers.html What impresses me with the cell types is that the config data for select fields, checkboxes, datepickers and autocompletes etc can be read straight from your field's config data in PW so there is almost certainly a way of making that happen if I ever find the time. So many possibilities here, and I love what you've done so far!