apeisa

Hmm.. I will do my local testing soon. Everyone else who have time could test where their limit is with ajax upload. I think this might be one solution for this: https://github.com/23/resumable.js#readme

Is there some specific file size where this fails? I am thinking about possibility to automatically fallback to traditional upload when files are 15MB or larger. Although we need to first try to find the reason and fix for this.

I think they can be used on front-end also, especially if you take some code from admin templates. But that is not recommended or good practice, since you might need/want to use newer version of jQuery in your site than what is tested and shipped with PW admin. Also other way too - you might not want your front-end jQuery version change when you update PW.

Those modules are intended for admin usage only. Are you trying to use those on your site or in admin module?

Reason for not to be able to upload files (I cannot either):

In case of portability: maybe content.css should be in /site/ folder instead of /wire/?

Evan: you have pretty impressive client list there. Are you planning to use PW on client projects also?

I have committed this change at some point: https://github.com/a...135f4fa5824b20f There are more differences than mouseover/mouseenter (I was using native js-event instead of jQuery), so your fix might well work on all browsers. What I don't understand is why it has broken now? Maybe browser cache with all of us or something like that...? EDIT: I tested this and it works nice. Thanks Soma for the fix. I merged it in and also removed one unnecessary debug message I had forgotten there.

Soma, thanks for the fix! Have you tested that on Firefox? See this: http://processwire.com/talk/topic/643-release-thumbnails/page__p__5253#entry5253

I'll hope to find time to take a look at this. I have test case and can repeat this. With quick look I couldn't find what is causing it. JS is not throwing errors, so I think it is changed markup somewhere or some new styles that is causing problems. Probably a quick fix, but now heading to a bed.

Words of wisdom Soma. Everytime I have used "full blown ecommerce software" (I have used OsCommerce and CS-Cart) I have had similar experience: it has all the bells and whistles, lots of settings and things to tweak from the admin... But then there is something simple, like "I need to change some markup" or "I need to customize those emails" and it all falls down. You need to start customizing core files or do some very strange hacks. It would be great to build this same way like PW works: enable regular developers to do amazing stuff easily. Let developers build stuff, not tweak and hack. Also - big eCommerce products are huge, that understanding how things work really take time... So I generally agree with everything you wrote above. Also would be nice if our "shop" would be build on lot's of small modules that work well together. Something like this: Shopping cart module (adding or removing products etc) Checkout module (handles the checkout process) Payment modules (paypal, google checkout etc) [*]Order management module (shows orders in admin) [*]etc... You could cherry pick what you need on project basis. What would make things very interesting would be to have one more module: Shop module (would install all or some of the modules above, adds product template and just gives you a simple shop from one click)

What I mean with messy is that you have different kind of variations and options. You can have variations like "yellow / red / blue / orange", then on top of that you might have another set with similar variations like "XL, L, M, S" (so we need to allow combinations). Then you might have checkbox style of options, like "Premium quality", "Signature by apeisa" etc... This is of course possible to do with using child pages, but I think that it will introduce some challenges to build it in a way that is easy to use... Although what I do like in that approach that it is easy to build, it is "pw-style" and it something that most of site builders can then easily customize (not the case with custom fieldtypes). It is also out of the box "compatible" with the current module. EDIT: Also interesting to see how you used your variations and looking forward what you came up with. You were right about using pages to hold orders too (I have discussed about this earlier with Soma), so I think that you might be right this time too Soma

It would be superb to have module which maps local accounts with 3rd party services (like Twitter, Facebook, Google etc).

Great to hear that this was help for you Soma. I agree with you, all logic and html should be separated (not sure how well my start does that, since that is quickly coded). On top of that I think we should allow good defaults for render functions, which should be easy to customize (or just build own markup like you have done). How you handled the variations is pretty much how I have always thought of doing that. Although I think that cleanest way in long run would be to build new fieldtypeMultiple which holds all the variations. Since there are things like additional options (think checkbox: "add extended quarantine 199€") then using child pages for things like that also would get messy. Eager to hear how my module worked? Did you find any bugs or some code that didn't make any sense?

Oliver, glad that you are interested in PW-ecommerce modules. What my early module currently does is simple shopping cart and order management. But I don't think it does those things in very modular or easily extendable way (other than the parts where it just uses PW). Stock management would be easy add on, if we stick to assumption that "product is just a page which have a price field". There are stuff like payment and shipping methods which I haven't touched yet. I don't believe that I have enough experience to design the "PW eCommerce framework" in easily extendable way. Put what I am more than interested is to help build parts of that framework. So if we start this coordinated project between many coders, I am more than happy to participate, but not as "lead developer" About the "challenges". I think that multiple product variations, product options etc. could be best done with few fieldtypemultiples.

Ryan, isn't multiple site support on core little bit different? In core it supports multiple sites with their own databases, but shared core files (wire folder). But what I think that Robert is after is multiple domains from same install (shared database, users etc). Same thing that I mentioned here: http://processwire.c...om-one-install/ (haven't yet tested that, but that requirement will come soon so I will). We probably need some better terms to differentiate these two things. EDIT: So to be clear: your code on this topic will provide different "multisite" than the core method?

That is cool. What you guys think about those html/css/js toolkits like this one and twitter bootstrap?

You have limit=1 in your selector - if I remember right pagination cannot work with limit=1, you need at least 2.

I actually tested this, since there are ways to have google index Ajax-content, so thought that they probably index Facebook comments too. And they actually do that. I went to popular music site here in Finland, opened one of their reviews (http://www.nrgm.fi/kritiikit/manna-shackles/) and took part of one facebook comment and searched for that: http://www.google.fi/search?ie=UTF-8&q=%22Joskus+1980-luvun+ensimm%C3%A4isell%C3%A4+puoliskolla%22 and it returned the page where I took the snippet from. Then one more google search revealed that this is indeed pretty new addition: http://just-ask-kim.com/google-now-indexing-commenting-systems/

I just merged Pete's pull request, so if you grab latest version of Thumbnails then it should work. I haven't tested this yet myself, but I will soon too. Special thanks to Pete for working on this and adding great new feature (template specific crops).

Little ot: Why asmSelect with single page? What is benefit over regular dropdown?

Yep, fix is coming soon. Pete already send me a pull request, but he wanted to tweak that little bit before I pull it in.

Yes, great additions. Soma, in the example Ryan is changing original page with different/modified one.

Thanks Ryan. What I was wondering was if you have both: "include=all, check_access=1" - it will include hidden and unpublished pages but would it still check access?

Yes, that is default. But include all is kind of opposite and I don't know which one is stronger...