apeisa

Terminology is funny thing - first I felt bad for saying pw templates as templates. I felt those are content types (or maybe "page types"). But after using pw for a while it feels natural and good. Only occasion when this causes problems is when using that jargon with someone who doesn't know pw, but have used other cms (like my example dialogue above). That is pretty minor concern, and having "duplicates" keeps number of terms needed. And I say "duplicates" because I feel that "Template" and "Template file" are different enough - especially because they are so tightly related.

I did send you a private message. Spotify have pretty much changed how I listen to music. Probably not much different from Rdio, Pandora etc what you have there, but very solid piece of software it is. Extremely good and fast streaming on even 3g connection (mobile usage requires paid plan). http://www.spotify.com/

You are not doing it wrong, I think what pw 2.1 has now is in many factors best ua management I have seen. It is simple and powerful, just like pw. I have done a poor job trying to describe our ua scenarios, but that is probably because I don't know the association jargon in English very well. But I have another example, a soccer club: There are 20 teams (male, female, different junior teams etc). Each team have their private section (20 ua "locks" here). Under each team there are two more restricted areas, one for "management" (+20 ua locks here) and other for "players only" (+20 ua locks here). Take the example above, change 20 teams to 200 associations, take those "two more restricted areas" to "five more restricted areas" and you have 200 * 6 = 1200 ua locks. One might think that isn't a job for cms (and maybe this is a bit extreme case), but I disagree. Managing 300 website instead of one is even more a mess. This kind a site requires client admins that can manage users & user access on each of those associations (they have full time employees just to manage their members).

It is. Also - many of our sites where client have "gone wild" with permissions are insanely complex - when they don't need to be. So some middle ground there could be nice (thinking about not allowing clients to manage access on every page, just on predefined pages).

If any of you US fellows need spotify invite, just ask. I have plenty of those. Not sure if those are as popular as they were when Spotify conquered Europe

This is how it works in PW 2.0. At some point Ryan was planning to do both. Here are thoughts behind that change: http://processwire.com/talk/index.php/topic,229.0.html I have somehow fixed feelings (and lots of emails with Ryan ) about this myself. We build sites mainly for big associations, and those can be very complex and hierarchical organisations. They have many times sections for geographical areas and in each of those they have vertical groups (like members, admins, board, volunteers etc). It is not rare to have over 50 user groups (one of our site has 700...), and hundreds of user access definitions. With current way (2.1) it leads to hundreds "just for ua" templates. In the other hand, it is clear that we need user access on template level. It would be pain to manage who can add news, who can add events etc. As we know pw pages are powerful, and much more than usual content pages - you build software on top of the pages. So after using the latest 2.1. and it's access management I really love it. But still, I do miss the easiness of adding page-specific permissions. It would keep the number of templates at minimum. Also, I recently thought that if there would be one admin page, that shows all the individual pages that have custom ua defined, then it wouldn't be such a mess. For sites that are complicated on "who can view what" then I feel that page-specific ua is clear winner. When you have public site and the main question is "who can edit what", then template based ua is clear winner. For us it a definite need to allow our clients to edit permissions (at least who can view and what). And template editing is something that I will not allow for our clients - so if page-specific ua is not coming, then my plan is to build module to add custom "ua" templates and also admin page where our client can manage access (and only that).

I got strange problem when migrating one of my personal projects from local (my win7 laptop) to server (linode vps). I cannot login. Strange thing is that if I put correct username and password, it doesn't say nothing, just reloads the login page. If I have wrong password, then it says "Login failed for apeisa". I have checked that my db:s are identical, also config files are identical (only db settings differ). $config->userAuthSalt is identical, as are field_pass hash and salt. I even tried to change my superuser password through api. It changes it, but same thing at login, silent death (no hurry with this one, just wondering what might be an issue here)

I assume you are using the 2.0 version? There is "Link to file" functionality in "soon-to-be-stable" version 2.1. There isn't upgrade script ready yet for 2.0 => 2.1 (there are few db changes that require running a script), but it coming soon after the 2.1 release. Not 100% sure, but most probably the InputfieldTinyMCE module from 2.1 works without problems in 2.0 also. Just replace the /wire/modules/Inputfield/InputfieldTinyMCE/ folder from 2.1 in your site structure. This could be short-term solution before you can update to 2.1. I don't usually recommend touching wire folder, but this should be pretty much safe operation (of course, test first ). 2.1 can be found here: https://github.com/ryancramerdesign/P21 and is considered (=used) pretty much production ready (although under heavy development).

Isn't PageListSelectMultiple with parent defined pretty much perfect solution here? It does require one click for editor, but I see that as a superior solution for 100+ checkboxes. To get "one click" just edit Page List module and add "Number of pages to display before pagination" to 200 or whatever you think is maximum. This of course affects other parts of the admin also (small side effect here, but I assume your client likes to see lot of pages at a time ).

Those classes are just for styling purposes, so you can edit them if needed. It doesn't output any css, that is something you have to write yourself. Also if you are building dropdown menu, then you have to add css/js also (not sure how well the markup suits for dropdown).

Oh, I missed the page template. Renaming that will definitely make things easier.

Put that function somewhere which is loaded by every page. Easiest solution might be to add that to your head.inc file (if you are building from demo site). That function doesn't do nothing if you don't use it. So if you want it to have some output, put this in your template file, wherever you want you menu: echo treeMenu(); If you need more help, just post your full template so I can take a better look at it. You can also send it by private message if you don't want to post it here. Also email is ok: antti.peisa -- gmail EDIT: Also note that treeMenu expands from root level to the current page. You can give it parameters to have it start and end from different pages than root and current page.

Clever solution! Shows again how brilliant idea it was from Ryan to treat users as pages.

There are at least one more case where similar "problem" occurs: Template (as a content type) Template (as a template file). Page (as a node) Page (as a field type) I am not sure how much this is a problem. I myself have started to talking about templates and template files. It works fine if person somehow knows what template is. But for everyone outside pw they think templates as template files. I had conversation full of misunderstanding when I tried to explain how user access in pw 2.1 works: "It is configured at the template level" "At the template level? Sounds interesting..." "Well, that is actually pretty good, since there is much less templates than there is pages." "Yes, I understand, but templates... doesn't sound good to me have ua logic in your template files." "Ah, not in template files, but in templates!" "Hmm... not sure if I understand. Doesn't make any sense to me." "Templates are like content types in Drupal" "Ah, now I see." I haven't had similar conversation yet with pages and page field type, but that day probably comes. We have discussed about these issues before here in the forums, and I think Ryan had good reasoning for this. I really like that pw is not bloated with different terms. That is probably one of the main reasons that pw is so easy to learn.

There is option, but as far as I know, it only affects the size of the description field. Of course that gives possibility to split those at newlines and allow markup like Adam posted.

Popular method is to have one page that holds all "meta" pages. Tools or extras or whatever suits you. Under that page you could have page called homepage slider, and have each image/page under that.

Matt, nice that you came in to tell more. I stumble to your blog from time to time, and will subscribe now, since I think you have pretty good solution here. I will test more when I get my internet access back, but it sounds like a great solution when you are taking existing site and turning it to a responsive. Ps. While you are here, please take pw for a test drive, would love to hear your thoughts

Posting from mobile, so this will be short. You can easily get the same listing with multiple pages & single image than with single page & multiple images. Even the php-code in your templates will be pretty close.

Martin, I have had no internet access since yesterday (only this mobile 3g), but if our operator gets things working soon I might get the job done. I'll send you an email.

Moro Aleksi ja tervetuloa! PW should be all the way UTF-8 and I have had no issues with special chars at all. Template encoding doesn't matter (only if want to write special chars directly to the template files). So agree with Adam, problem probably lies between php & mysql. Is your db tables UTF-8?

Files are written to /site/assets/files/ so make sure you have given write permissions there (0777 if using (s)ftp or chmod ugo+rw if using shell).

Sorry to hear about that Pete. I don't give you lessons about backups since same could happen to me for my personal projects and tests. I think SSD drives are far from reliability of hard drives - although many people tell otherwise. "They have no moving parts so they don't broke" => "They are new technology, so they probably fail much more often". Still, they are much faster, so I won't use other disks after my Vaio dies. Related: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2011/05/the-hot-crazy-solid-state-drive-scale.html

I see what you mean with overhead. And that would be kind of micro management anyway. I really like the option to wipe whole cache.

This has much more to do with wives than windows Exactly same thing happened here But gotta say that I run my personal XP computer without any single virus or adware without virus scanners for about 5 years (only run scanners now and then, never found nothing) - just using windows firewall. Although XP had the bad habit to slow down and required reformatting every two years. And now with Win7 I have had no single crash or any kind of problems at all - it really is a huge leap forward. I only use MS Security Essentials now, and it never disturbs my work. At workplace we have all kind of F-Secure etc running and those are worst crapware there is. I tend to hear much more crying and whining from mac camp than from win camp nowadays (probably because most of my computer geek friends are in mac camp ). But more and more OS is turning into "that strange loading icon before you can open your web browser". I think Google might be on something with their Chrome OS - although they might be five years too early. Nostalgia trip: I started using computers probably in early 90's. I remember Dos, memory problems and especially the Norton Commander. Still prefer dir over ls

Ryan, sounds like powerful workflow. At work I use Win7 and try to keep n. of windows in minimum. On top of that I have two big monitors (1680x1050, if I remember correctly) - main window is landscape and other one is in portrait mode. I use second monitor mainly for browser, and main monitor keeps editor (komodo edit), shell windows, photoshop (if needed) etc... I like to run all apps on full screen mode. I am also pretty eager to close programs that I don't need, and clean open tabs from my browser at quite a regular interval. Oh, and I'll got my first mac (from work) soon, I will test drive that on next to my Dell workhorse.