ryan

Thanks guys, I'm about to get cut off the internet till Sunday... Though today is the first I've been online since we left (I'm on a cell phone).. We were in Orlando for the last couple of days and now on board a ship called the Disney Dream. We're at a port in Cape Canaveral (can see the shuttle launch pad). I've never been on one of these things before and hoping I don't get seasick! Can already feel the boat moving and we haven't even left port. Apparently the Internet is crazy expensive and doesn't even work half the time, so probably not going to try once the 3G signal gets out of range. Our baby is sleeping so I'm just chilling on the cell phone trying to be quiet. Thanks again for keeping an eye on things here.

Just to clarify, fieldtypes handle data to/from DB (not inputfields). Every field in your site has a type (where the name fieldtype comes from). Part of that type is a database schema and methods to load/save the data from the db. Though most fieldtypes just use the inherited load and save functionality from the Fieldtype base class. Whereas inputfields just handle interactive input in the admin (aka input widgets). At their simplest, they are just an HTML form field like a text or textarea. If you were working just with the PW API, inputfields would never come into play (unless you wanted them to for some reason), because there would be no form or user typing stuff in. Of course there are no rules about any of this, so just describing the way the core and core modules work. Something like the flickr importer obviously goes far beyond a typical input widget, so approach changes with needs.

Thanks for making this, i can't wait to check this one out when I get back! Congrats on this module, based on the video I saw before, this is a pretty awesome thing you've put together.

The PageListSelectMultiple is supposed to work with parent, at least that was the intention. If it's not working (not saving your descendent selections), then chances are it's a bug... An over-validation. As a temporary solution till I get back, try what Antti suggested, or just set no criteria at all for the pages, and see if you can just let it work with the entire site tree, temporarily.

I'm going to be at sea without internet access for a few days (till about August 9th). Though I'm hoping to come across some random wireless networks here and there, but that's uncertain. Adam and Antti are running the forum, and please click on their +[karma] links when you get the chance. Hope everyone has a great week, and I look forward to officially replacing PW 2.0 with PW 2.1 in August.

Adam I'm actually saving bottles right now to do my first homebrew, so if it's legal to send beer in the mail I can send you a bottle or two.

My opinion is that the marketplace should support those that want to provide free modules and those that want to sell commercial modules. I don't want to give preference to one over the other. I am thrilled anytime someone wants to build something in–or for–ProcessWire. Our audience has some crossover with ExpressionEngine, and that community has attracted some very skilled add-on authors that are producing software far better than EE itself. I'd like to have these folks develop their add-ons for ProcessWire too, but I think they need to have a financial reason to do so since it is their full-time job. I'm not interested in bringing any commercialism to ProcessWire itself, just want to see the ecosystem represent the level of quality add-ons that our audience deserves. So I think this is probably somewhat similar to Concrete5's approach, though I've not researched their approach in any depth. If someone wants to sell an add-on, we will have expectations from them that we won't have from those providing free add-ons. They will be have to agree to provide a certain level of service and support for a given period of time (like that C5 agreement). If someone wants to provide a free add-on, then their level of support will only be limited to that of the license they've chosen (which basically means they don't have to do anything). Like anywhere else, people will be able to rate and comment on these things, which will help to separate the quality from the crap. Though I think the nature of PW is such that there will be a lot of quality and very little crap. I'm not so worried about people building 3rd party modules for stuff that should be in the core. PW will always be a fully featured, free product on it's own and not require 3rd party modules any more than it does now. This is unlike something like Drupal which is quite limited without 3rd party modules (CCK, Views, etc.) I'm not sure I've stated anything new here, but just thoughts on what's been written so far. Random off topic stuff, but this discussion made me think of it… When I first started coding stuff, like around 1989 or 1990, most software was based on a model called shareware. This was mostly pre-internet, so you'd download it from BBSs. Most software was compiled (EXE files), so open source wasn't an every day term. But with this model, you could download and use the software, but you agreed that you would buy it after a 30 day trial if you wanted to continue using it. Or in some cases you could use it for free forever, but had to buy it if you wanted to use a version with extra features. Some software stopped working after 30 days, while other software was just based on the honor system. I partially paid my way through college with a shareware software I wrote called DataView (an archive viewing utility for BBSs). Also made another free software called "one-liner" which was basically Twitter, but for the BBS age. That term "shareware" doesn't seem to be around anymore, at least I've not heard it in quite a long time. I'm not suggesting this model has relevancy to our discussion, just reminiscing.

I have the same issue, which has had me miss new messages a couple of times. I figured it was just the behavior of the forum. I haven't seen any options to change that behavior unfortunately.

I can upgrade this when I get back, but if you want to upgrade on your own it's really easy. Just download the latest jQuery and save it to this file (overwriting the old version): /wire/modules/Jquery/JqueryCore/JqueryCore.js That's all there is to it. Though if you want to make it official, then edit the jQueryCore.module file in that same dir, and set it to have the correct version number. If you opt to upgrade your jQuery, let me know how it goes. If all seems good, I'll commit the upgrade when I get back (or do a pull request if you prefer). I will probably look at the jQuery UI version at the same time, just to see if there are any upgrades there we should include as well. Thanks, Ryan

You guys give me way too much credit. If you saw how many clips were recorded and how many umms and uhhhs were edited out, you'd laugh. I eventually realized that I had to write down whatever I say on the video, and just read it off the screen. Luckily the macbook has a camera built into the screen, so it doesn't really look like you are reading off the screen. There's a reason why I don't make many of these videos... it takes half a day just to do a short one. But it is true that I can build skyscrapers with my bare hands– as long as I've got enough legos to do it. ;D

I'm responding from phone so keeping it short: $image = $pages->get("template=page-headers, sort=random")->images->getRandom();

Thanks for letting me know – Looks like I had "allow URL segments" turned on in the homepage's template. I don't need that on the homepage, so turned it off, and problem solved.

Looks like your server is forcing a Windows-1251 charset header, overriding ProcessWire's UTF8 charset setting. Try the following: Add this to the top of your .htaccess file: AddDefaultCharset UTF-8 If that doesn't fix it, try adding this to the top of your /index.php file: <?php header('Content-type: text/html; charset=utf-8'); Hopefully we can override the Windows-1251 charset that the server is forcing in Apache.

Thanks all for testing this! Next round of drinks is on me. @Sinnut, thanks for posting this .htaccess directive. I am going to try it out and take a closer look and perhaps look at including this in my sites, if not PW. I didn't realize it could be defined at this level, which is pretty awesome. That /regions/ page just has a blank template. I still need to do something with it (along with a few others) but hasn't yet been a priority since it's not a functional page on the site. But I agree that sooner or later people will test it out in their address bar... I'm prone to doing this on sites as a form of navigation myself. I'm getting 404s for all non-existing regions off of /regions/, like http://villarental.com/regions/lajelakjelj (which is what it should do). What's an example of a URL that's giving you a redirect? @Adamkiss, you are the man. Thanks so much for all your testing here! This is really helpful. Now I'm off to try and reproduce it myself. That "0" was not supposed to be in the masthead.css–that's an error, just fixed. Thanks for finding it. The -moz-border-radius is intentionally excluded. I don't want it to render the rounded corners unless the browser actually supports the native border-radius. The reason is that -moz-border-radius (in FF3 at least) only rounds actual borders, and not the boundaries of images. So when I was using it, I was getting some things rounded and some things not, and it just looked inconsistent in a bad way. I figured it looked better if everything was either rounded or not rounded in a consistent manner. Btw, you are the man.

Thanks for looking at these. I was thinking some css3pie might be a good way to go here. The only reason I haven't yet is that I like the squared off version almost as well (like in IE and other older browsers), so don't mind the variation. But I think the right thing for me to do is instead let the client decide... but that's after I figure out the rendering issues. So far I haven't been able to find anyone else that can duplicate it except for this client. But this client has been able to duplicate it on many computers running FF3, both in and out of their network. Their whole company is apparently standardized on FF3.6. They've only been able to duplicate it on one computer running IE8 (as far as I know). And we did play with the compatibility mode, that wasn't it. So the FF3 one is more of a concern. @Pete: while the compatibility mode isn't the issue here (we tried it both ways), the compatibility mode issue has come up on other sites before, so that header is good to know about–thanks (I didn't know about that one before). I did know about the meta tag (below), but the header really may be a better solution since it catches IE before markup starts flowing. <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=EmulateIE7" />

Can you paste in the exact text? I just want to try and see if I can duplicate locally. Though I was assisting someone else with Cyrillic text a couple weeks ago and everything worked well for me. It turned out that their PCRE version was from PHP 5.1 (even though their PHP version was 5.3), and didn't support Cyrillic. However, that doesn't appear to be the case for you as your PCRE appears to be up-to-date.

I think that interpreting a license is kind of a tricky spot because lots of GNU software has components of other GNU software. And one author can't make the interpretation for another. So I think it may be best to take the license literally for what it says and the author has to accept it just like the users do. Though the copyright holder can always change the license, but then they have to make sure that's compatible with any other components in the software. For instance, if PW were to be MIT licensed, then I probably couldn't bundle in TinyMCE and Markdown with it anymore. I don't think there is anything in the GNU license that would lead me to believe that someone's original/custom plugin modules would fall under PW's license any more than your website itself would. The reason for this is that ProcessWire is a tool, like PHP is a tool. When you use the API to create your a website or supporting module(s), you are using that tool in the manner it was designed for. PW's license doesn't say what license your own code carries unless you go in and modify PW's code in the process. When you create modules or templates, you aren't modifying PW's code. After all, ProcessWire doesn't have to be released under the same license as PHP. I didn't think this was an interpretation of the GNU license, but I'm also not a lawyer, so somebody correct me if I'm wrong.

Can you describe in more detail: what behavior are you experiencing and can you paste in the text/label that's causing it to hang up? Also, view your phpinfo(); and look under the "PCRE" section and let us know what it says the PCRE version is. Lastly, look in your MySQL database for the table 'field_title' and let me know if it's charset is not utf8.

Yes, t-shirts, coffee mugs, and books too (books re-posted from another thread)

Not ProcessWire related (other than the site was built in it), but also maybe not pub material. But I'm one of those people that goes to the pub and sometimes talks about work... I'll setup a "General Web Development" forum later. I've got a client that is telling me the site I launched a couple weeks ago (http://villarental.com) is not working in Firefox 3.5. They've sent me screenshots, and apparently lots of things are just breaking, layout-wise, and inconsistently at that. See the attached screenshots. The problem is that I can't duplicate it. I've borrowed an old Mac with FF 3.5 and installed FF 3.6 on a WinXP virtual machine, and everything displays just fine (minus no CSS3 round corners). The code also validates with validator.w3.org. Then yesterday, I got another email that it was now breaking in Internet Expoder 8 (see 3rd & 4th, smaller screenshots). Again, I can't duplicate it... everything displays just fine for me in IE8. So something is going on here, but I'm at a loss to determine what since I can't duplicate any of it. Just wondering if you've got FF3 or IE8 sitting around, can you try loading http://villarental.com and click around a couple pages and let me know what you see? Even if everything looks fine, it'd be good to know at least I'm not alone in being unable to reproduce the breaking layout.

I haven't seen this one yet, but have it in my netflix streaming queue. The problem is, I don't think we've actually watched a full movie since we had a baby (now toddler), 16 months ago. Hope to get around to this eventually.

I bookmarked that to read in more detail later, but I think they may be talking about the nested set model. There are a few reasons why this isn't a good model for PW (http://processwire.com/talk/index.php/topic,43.0.html), but I'll enjoy reading the article nevertheless. Also, what would make the sort routine fast is for me to just recode it to use SQL queries rather than API calls... that would make it lightning fast even with a thousand pages. But I'm trying to avoid going there except where necessary, because it means thinking about all the other stuff that happens when a page is loaded or saved, like hooks. If I go and manipulate the DB directly, I don't have to load or save any pages, but likewise none of the load or save hooks would get executed.

I wasn't aware of Concrete5's marketplace–it seems like a good model. Thanks for posting this. ProcessWire is as much of a development tool as it is a CMS, so I think our audience is largely designer/developers–people that have their own clients to support and people that are strong believers in open source. I'd like to build the ecosystem in a manner that best accommodates this audience. In addition to providing high levels of support for those that want it, I think that marketplace for add-ons and services is also a good way to do that. Though I envision that most modules, templates, etc., in the marketplace would be free, but if somebody wants to make investments to build and support a commercial module or service, I would want to support their ability to do that. Like most open source CMS projects, ProcessWire is GNU licensed. Concrete5 is a little bit unique in that it's MIT licensed (I think), which is even less restrictive than GNU. It says you can take the code and do whatever you want to with it... you can go build your own commercial application around Concrete5 and then sell it. Whereas, the GNU license requires that forks also carry the GNU license. That makes it hard to sell something derived from GNU licensed software, unless your selling services related to it while making it clear to the customer that the software is free. But ProcessWire's module/plugin system maintains a strong separation between what is ProcessWire and what is the module. Like a web site built in ProcessWire, 3rd party modules are not derived from ProcessWire, they just implement the interface that ProcessWire requires and use its API. So 3rd party developers are welcome to commercially license their own modules if they choose to. At least, that's how I understand it (I'm no expert on licenses). If the module interface (Module.php) or starter modules (like Process.php, ModuleJS.php or Textformatter.php), or admin templates need to be dual MIT/GNU licensed, then I'm okay with that, but the core would stay GNU. I think our usage is probably far too small right now for there to be a market for commercial modules, but I also think we're going to reach that critical mass before long, so it's good to start talking about it now. Antti's ideas around the marketplace seem like a good direction for developers to make their PW-related products and services available.

Adam thanks for the props but don't give PW too much credit in this area. To be fair, I don't think we've got the perfect sorting solution in place yet. The sorting doesn't scale particularly well because it has to load all the sibling pages to do it's thing. Depending on where you sort the page to, it might also have to save a boatload of pages. If we're talking about a few hundred pages, it's going to be slow. If we're talking about a few thousand pages, then it might just run out of memory. But who wants to manually sort thousands of pages? ... Luckily, most situations where you would have a lot of pages, you are also going to have a default sort setup (like name, title or date). Manual sorting is really only useful for smaller things like navigation. But I still want to make the manual sorting a lot more efficient at some point in the future. It's just not a major priority since the potential problems with it are unlikely to show up in regular use.

Trying to keep a block of reserved IDs in the lower numbers for future use, probably going to change the starting ID to like 1000 or something like that.