teppo

$config->httpHost should return current domain (if it's included in the httpHosts setting) or the first domain from said setting if no match was found. Here's the related code for reference: https://github.com/processwire/processwire/blob/341342dc5b1c58012ae7cb26cffe2c57cd915552/wire/core/ProcessWire.php#L308-L323. If you're accessing your site with the dev domain and this domain is included in the httpHosts setting, that should be what this method returns. If not, I'd make sure that related settings are properly configured, and that your server works as expected (particularly in terms of SERVER_NAME and/or HTTP_HOST). I'm not entirely sure what you're referring to with the "edit multiple URLs in the code" part, but generally speaking I'd recommend using relative paths etc. instead of fully qualified domains. This way it doesn't really matter which domain you access your site from. It's possible that you were actually referring to something else, so feel free to clarify this part Edit: actually there's one more thing to keep in mind here, which is that ProcessWire prefers the ServerName value from the Apache VirtualHost block ($_SERVER['SERVER_NAME']) over the host header provided by the browser ($_SERVER['HTTP_HOST']) when determining httpHost. ServerName is used at least if Apache "UseCanonicalName" setting is "on", but this behaviour may apparently vary between different Apache versions. In this case the solution would be either disabling the UseCanonicalName setting, or creating separate VirtualHost blocks for all domains you want to use with ProcessWire.

That isn't actually necessary; Process module execute methods don't have to be hookable. (Gadgetto, in case you haven't yet looked into the hook system, three underscores are only required if you want to make the function hookable – i.e. allow code in template files, modules, init.php / ready.php files within site directory, etc. to "hook" into their execution. Otherwise it's fine to leave them out.) On a loosely related note, you also don't have to set up your own PHP version comparison. You can define required PHP version with the "requires" setting

Sorry to answer a question with another question, but is there a specific reason you want subscribers to be users? You mentioned being able to use the MODX permission system, but what do you use it for? While there's no technical reason why you couldn't make your subscribers ProcessWire users, the reason I'm asking is that unless there's a solid reason for it, I'd recommend not going that route. You'd essentially have to build an open registration system, where anyone can create new user accounts. While that isn't necessarily a problem in itself, coupled with any kind of permission related issue things could get very ugly very fast. That being said, depending on your needs you could use users, or you could create a custom template for your subscribers, or you could even create your own database table(s) – though that last option would likely not be preferable, considering that you wouldn't be able to benefit from ProcessWire's API. Whether you go with a custom template or choose to build upon built-in system users, I'd recommend looking into $pages->findMany(). Thousands of users / pages shouldn't be an issue.

I'm not sure if it's still applicable, but there's an old module as well: https://modules.processwire.com/modules/pageimage-remove-variations/. Although I'm guessing that @horst already knew about it...

Old discussion, but yeah – the plus sides of this kind of naming are that 1) it's a common practice across different systems (which makes it easy for new devs to grasp), and 2) that it's a very commonly typed function – not to mention one that you often see in front-end (or "view") part of a site or an app, and thus it's good to keep it nice and short . Expanding on the second point a bit, in the view side it often makes sense to have short function names, even if they're not particularly descriptive. Think of PHP's short echo tags (<?= ... ?>) or various tags implemented by templating languages: the point is to create minimal clutter, thus keeping view files clean and easy to follow --- Note: this thread is not related to module development per se, so I'm moving it to the Getting Started area of the forum.

Admin note: since this is clearly not a support thread for a module, I'm moving the whole thread to the General Support area of the forum. Please note that Modules / Plugins is only intended for dedicated module support threads. Thanks!

To be honest I'm a bit confused by your question (for an example I have no idea what you mean by "referring to mydomain/index.php" and how this relates to ProcessWire), but if you're trying to read a GET variable (mydomain/?u=value) in one of your template files then you can access it via $input->get->u. You can use $_GET['u'] as well since $input is mainly just a wrapper over GET / POST / COOKIE, but I'd recommend using $input in the context of ProcessWire

Admin note: I'm moving this thread from the "Modules/Plugins" section to the "General Support" area of the forum. Please submit general / core / core module related questions to the General Support section instead of Modules/Plugins.

@ryan, any chance you could set up a support forum thread for LoginRegister? Currently it doesn't have one, and these requests pile up in the Modules/Plugins area. Just trying to keep things nice and tidy here

Note: I've just moved this thread from the "Modules/Plugins" section of the forum to the "General Support" section. "Modules/Plugins" is intended for dedicated module support threads, and general questions like this belong to other areas

Browse to madewithlaravel.com and check out pretty much anything that doesn't manage data, and/or doesn't produce output. From the front page: Clockwork, Fractal, Vessel, etc. Also anything that is more "component", intended to be used within other applications, rather than a "full-blown application" itself Perhaps a more familiar example would be https://wireshell.pw/. While it's not built using a WAF, it does make use of Symfony components. Could it be built using ProcessWire? In theory yes. Would it benefit from being powered by ProcessWire? Not really.

What @LostKobrakai said. The short answer to "what can Laravel and Symfony do that PW cannot" is "nothing", but in my opinion that's not really the question you should be asking – rather you should ask what it is that they are better suited for than ProcessWire In my experience (based on other web application frameworks, not Laravel or Symfony specifically) the biggest day-to-day difference is exactly the general purpose nature of web application frameworks: ProcessWire is specialised to content management, hence it's a "content management framework" (CMF) rather than a "web application framework" (WAF). In some regards ProcessWire has more built-in stuff than WAF's, and in some regards it has less – just like LostKobrakai pointed out above Some examples of the differences include routing and project structure / application architecture: Although this might be changing, not too long ago it seemed that every PHP framework enforced MVC pattern, or at least recommended it. ProcessWire, on the other hand, doesn't (natively) include anything like that. The default, out-of-the-box approach ("output strategy") is a straightforward solution where single template file contains (or rather can contain – of course you can also split it into multiple include files) all the code required by said template. Similarly in ProcessWire URLs are by default routed to pages, and although custom routing is technically possible using URL segments, there's no real, robust routing library included, other than what Pages / PagesFiles / Process modules require to function properly. While it's true that you can build pretty much anything on top of ProcessWire (or WordPress, or Drupal, or any remotely flexible CMS/CMF for that matter), whether that's a good idea depends on a number of factors. For an example, if there's no content to manage – or the content you have requires a very specific type of structure or storage mechanism or something – a general purpose WAF may provide you with more suitable tools than most CMS/CMF platforms Just for the record, https://madewithlaravel.com/ has quite a few examples of stuff built with Laravel. Some could've made at least as much sense as ProcessWire projects, while others are clearly better suited for a WAF.

Congrats on the new computer, Ryan. I'm assuming that this is related to moving onto the new dev setup, but it almost calls for one of those "yo dawg, we heard you like ..." meme pics, amirite?

Some extra overhead is to be expected, but it really shouldn't affect performance "massively". Hard to say more without seeing actual numbers and/or digging into the implementation, but first you should make absolutely sure that there's nothing strange going on: Check that there aren't any 404 requests due to HTTP/HTTPS mismatch. These can sometimes result in very noticeable increase in load times. Double check for odd redirects using something like Chrome dev tools: make sure that your HTTPS requests are not, for some weird reason, getting unnecessarily redirected. Make sure that your server isn't doing anything it shouldn't be doing when request is sent over HTTPS. This is a bit vague, but without knowing anything about your server, it's hard to narrow this point down either Finally, try to see if there are any third party dependencies (browser or server side) that could cause the delay. Regarding server side issues, you can find useful tips from the typical sources, such as Stack Overflow. This particular thread, for an example, mentions keepalive as a possible source of slowdowns. Although I find it hard to believe that someone would intentionally disable keepalive, that's definitely worth checking if the issue is very noticeable. Probably plenty of other stuff to check too, but to summarise: HTTPS is slower than HTTP, but the difference is rarely in "massive" scale Edit: if it wasn't already clear, I'd like to add that there's a very high probability that this issue is actually not about ProcessWire per se, but something else entirely.

Hey @MischaK, just wanted to say thanks for going through the trouble of explaining your findings here. Very much appreciated I'm also glad to hear that there's still demand for versioning the content. I originally developed the Version Control module when we were in the process of migrating from an earlier, in-house CMS to ProcessWire. Since our old system had extensive versioning system built-in I thought it'd be a necessity for the new system as well, but at this point I'm ready to admit that I might've been somewhat misguided. It's been years since that migration started, and so far I've had a handful of clients request some method of content versioning. The times I've had to solve an issue where content was accidentally removed and couldn't be found anywhere can be counted on fingers of one hand – and yes, we've dealt with some pretty big sites. Talking about dozens of content editors and thousands of pages of content. My conclusion at this point is that it's rarely a real necessity to have content versioning in a CMS, but you're absolutely right that it's a great safety net to have. I guess it's also more important (and more useful) for users that are already used to having it in, say, a system they've used before. Kind of like how you see devs build software without any kind of version control system in place: to me it seems like a horrible nightmare, but they don't know any better – and if they've been doing that for a while already, they've probably developed other approaches to versioning or backing up their work