ryan

Hani, are you able to update this module listing to point to a GitHub repo of this project? With the module installation options in the PW modules menu, the current linked file (a .module file) doesn't work for automatic installation. While a GitHub repo is preferable, it may work if you can ZIP the module into an archive and post that instead. In either case, we need to update your module listing so that it points to GitHub and/or your module repo. Let me know if I can assist.

SiNNuT, glad you are liking this tool. I just committed an update that should fix this (I had an array_merge() with the wrong order of arguments). Actually, I was getting required as always empty (even if it was required) so the behavior I saw was a little different than what you mentioned. Can you confirm it fixes the issue?

Alejandro, any idea how you were able to install ProcessLanguage before LanguageSupport? I've been here trying to figure out how that might have happened, but I can't find any paths that let me do it. Even the API will halt the operation. Clearly there must be some path to do it though, as otherwise I don't think you could have gotten that error. I don't have an install button for ProcessLanguage either (that doesn't appear until the dependencies are met). Adrian it sounds like you might have clicked on the module title, as there's no Install button present. A default javascript action will still pop-up if you click on it, but it's got nothing to do since there is no install button. If there's any confusion coming from that, I think we'll just drop that javascript action, as I don't think it's even translatable at present... and it's not had much purpose ever since we moved install has been a separate button.

Wayne, thanks I think you've done a good job of outlining the issue. Before we attempt to fix it by requiring a re-translation of existing terms, I thought we might try to solve it by making the order of terms translatable. Could you (or anyone else that wants to try) try replacing this line in /wire/core/Functions.php: return sprintf('%s%d%s%s %s', $prepend, (int) $difference, $space, $period, $tense); // i.e. 2 days ago (d=qty, 2=period, 3=tense) With these lines: $quantity = $prepend . $difference . $space; $format = __('Q P T', __FILE__); // Relative time order: Q=Quantity, P=Period, T=Tense (i.e. 2 Days Ago) $out = str_replace(array('Q', 'P', 'T'), array(" $quantity", " $period", " $tense"), $format); if($abbreviate === 1) $out = str_replace("$quantity $period", "$quantity$period", $out); return trim($out); Then translate the /wire/core/Functions.php using the Setup > Languages > Translation tool, and adjust the order of Q, P, and T in the translation engine according to what makes sense with the locality. For instance, it German it sounds like it should be: T Q P. I'm curious if this solution resolves the issue or if further changes might be necessary. Thanks.

Raymond, Can you try out the update I just pushed to FieldtypeConcat? I couldn't duplicate the issue you are seeing, but I can how why it's feasible to occur. I updated the module to identify it's requirements for ProcessWire 2.5+ dependencies and am wondering if this might resolve the issue.

Child pages don't become part of the PageTable unless they are added from the PageTable field. It is possible for a parent to contain multiple children, some PageTable some unrelated. So just adding a child to a parent does not automatically add it to a PageTable (not currently anyway). The relations are tracked with a separate table rather than with a parent/child relationship.

This is possible. Try the cmscritic example. Click like on ProcessWire. You should see a "products you liked" link on the top right corner of directory list pages. If you'd like I can send you the readme file which has instructions on how to implement.

The configuration as it applies to Fieldtype or Inputfield modules is exported/imported. If you are talking about other modules (like the configuration that's in Admin > Modules > Site or Core), then it's certainly feasible to do it the same way. Something to consider for the future.

Soma, thanks for testing it out. I'm guessing there are a few Fieldtypes it's not going to work with yet (I've tested most, but not yet all). This whole system should be considered alpha at this stage, so the usual disclaimer applies: use it for play rather than production. In the case of the error message you got there, it looks like FIeldtypeCache has a bug where its attempting to access its DB table before the field exists. I think this is something that has to be fixed in FieldtyepCache rather than import/export. But I would like the export/import to capture those kinds of exceptions, so this'll be a good one to test with while I fix it.

In case anyone is interested in trying out some of the things I was talking about in previous posts here, the latest dev branch has a field import/export function. You'll see it in the lower right corner of Setup > Fields. It enables you to copy and paste any fields across any PW installations. Locally, I also have this working for templates (with fieldgroups), though that part needs a little more work so it's not yet committed. I also have fields, templates and fieldgroups mirroring every change to JSON files, as an option that can be enabled for those that want to version these things with Git and what not. That part also isn't yet committed to dev, but will be soon. However, I figured the copy/paste function probably had the largest use potential. It makes migrating field changes (or creation of new fields) quite a simple task. Next up on the commits will be the same thing for templates (with fieldgroups). (note I didn't take these screenshots together, so they aren't referencing the same fields).

We can take criticism here, it's always helpful. It's true that 30 minutes really isn't enough to understand or evaluate ProcessWire, but I do like hearing the 30 minute perspective because I can see that is something we need to work on. While I think our audience is currently a bit different than WordPress, WP is the largest CMS platform by far and so we always have to pay attention as to how we're perceived by the WordPress community. I would like that perception to be one where people that enjoy WordPress would consider ProcessWire when they have needs to develop something beyond what WordPress specializes in. Not that WordPress couldn't handle it (it's powering some quite large and comprehensive sites) but that ProcessWire can accommodate more custom, complex and larger sites quite a bit more easily and efficiently, at least once you know ProcessWire. WP and PW are both useful tools for any developer to keep in their pocket. While you can develop quite a nice blog in PW, you may save yourself time to do it in WP. Likewise, you can develop quite large and complex sites in WP, but you would save your save quite a bit of time to do it in PW instead. That's an oversimplification of differences, but just saying that these tools aren't mutually exclusive. We're both on the LAMP and GNU teams too. As a side note, ProcessWire is here in part because of WordPress, or at least the founder. I didn't even know about WordPress at the time (beyond hearing it was something like Moveable Type), but was really inspired by Matt Mullenweg's speech at SXSW (I think it was 2006, it's been a few years), and that led me into open source. The way he spoke about open source struck a chord. We exchanged a couple of emails afterwards and I thanked him and told him I was going to develop ProcessWire as an open source project because his speech was such an inspiration. Prior to that it had been in development, but as a closed source project. It took more than 4 years and 2-rewrites before it was released, but that's where PW started as an open source project.

@Jeffro: Great to have you here! Thanks for joining the community, and thanks for writing about ProcessWire. @Joss: Just read your comment posted there and that is epic, you always have a way with words. I wish I had your gifts with words... composition... voiceovers... humor.... plants... and who knows what else you've mastered, but just glad you are here!

Great link Diogo. Thanks to you guys that replied to the article. It would really be quite an upset if a WordPress cheerleading site named WP Tavern came out with article saying they were switching their publishing platform to ProcessWire, wouldn't it?

Btw, if you are on WHM/cPanel, moving accounts (to another WHM/cPanel) setup is really easy. Pretty much a 1-click process. So if whatever change you make involves moving to a server where they can't migrate it for you, just use the migration tool built into WHM which has worked great in my experience. I used to host some clients on my own VPS and when they grew and moved to their own dedicated server, this migration tool made life easy.

If there is any evidence of it being a broader trend that extends beyond your experience, we'll look at it. But as far as I can tell it is an isolated issue. I'm just sorry you are the one to experience it. The growth has been slow and steady over a very long time. I'm not aware of any major new changes in growth there, other than acquiring the Amsterdam data center a couple years ago. I agree, that does seem like a long time. Without knowing the details of exactly what the problem was or how far it spread, I don't think I could analyze how long it should take to fix though. If you want to know why, definitely ask them about it. They are pretty straight up with these kinds of questions. We are on a dedicated server in the Reston data center. If they are able to share a dedicated server, it would be news to me. I like the way you are thinking though. But if I were you I'd make a more major change so that you can get off the bad luck train. Try out the LA or Amsterdam data center at least. Reston data center has been great to us, but not so good to you, so change up the location or even the host, otherwise you or your clients' minds will still be on outages and thus attracting them. I think your affected clients would also appreciate your effort in making those changes. But before you decide anything, just call them, tell them what you've run into, that you need a big change, and ask them what they suggest. They will also be the best ones to advise on your redundancy questions. I've found them to be very knowledgeable on this stuff.

Matthew, sorry to hear you are continuing to have outage issues. I always feel obligated to reply here because I stake my name and reputation on ServInt by recommending them here on the site, and that recommendation comes with a lot of long term experience with ServInt and numerous other hosts. I feel badly that you've not had a good experience. The only outages I've seen were 10 years ago, the latest Reston one, and that's it (though both went largely unnoticed by my clients). Beyond this site, I've got pretty much all of my clients at ServInt, in both Reston and LA data centers, all with their own dedicated servers and/or VPS accounts. I have experience with more than a dozen servers there over the last decade. I have also dealt with numerous other hosts over that time period. My experience has led me to trust ServInt very strongly relative to others, and I consider them the best in the business. I'm stating this not to contradict what you are saying or take anything away from the unfortunate experience you've had–it definitely gives me pause. Rather, I'm stating it to say that I think your experience may be unusual and unique. At least I hope that's the case. If it turns out to be a broader trend, we'll act on it, but I don't see evidence of that. Sometimes when things get started on a negative path, it's hard to get off of it (like the law of attraction), and you've got to throw a wrench into it by making a change. I would encourage you to call them and communicate your experience and ask them to make things right. Since your clients that use this server are in Europe, a switch to the Amsterdam data center seems to make sense. But just change something, whether as little as asking them to change the host node, or as major as switching to an entirely different data center (or even web host). I hope you will communicate your experience directly to them, because I don't think they will ever see this thread, which is unfair both to you and them. The site http://www.webhostingtalk.com/ is probably a better place for this discussion because I know they do sometimes read that and may have the opportunity to respond to your experience and make things right (something that can't be done here). Your best bet is just to call them though.

Both. The goal with ProcessWire is to be attractive web designers/developers with programming skills and those without programming skills. ProcessWire is primarily a CMF, somewhere in between a framework and a CMS, but with the ability to be completely one or the other as needed. The admin UI is an application on top of the API. No action in ProcessWire actually requires the admin UI. The admin UI is there to help you. If you don't like that kind of help, you are likely in the minority, but ProcessWire still has you covered. However, if you want to work purely in code you should also look beyond CMF/CMS and towards dedicated frameworks like Laravel. ProcessWire is fundamentally different from any of the CMSs you mentioned, and if you don't realize that yet then I'd encourage you to get to know the system better, and we're all here to help. While our system is fundamentally different, the web designer/developer side of our audiences are similar to those CMSs. Speaking outside of anything specific, we can't ignore what are likely our largest audiences. Perhaps in your system. Whatever limitations your opinion is based on are not present in ProcessWire. I put together a proof-of-concept here when the request came up a few messages above and I can assure you it works quite well. If there's enough demand for it, I'll finish and migrate it to the core. Though if it's something that less than 30% of people will actually use, then it doesn't belong in the core. This is why I'm more enthusiastic about supporting specific-audience features like this by extending API calls and hooks that help other module developers build these tools. Even when tools like this exist in a stable state, I see their value as being for migration and versioning, not for configuration. I don't believe any developer would choose to configure the rather comprehensive aspects of templates and fields from a text file. ProcessWire is more powerful than the systems you've mentioned. The options available to configure for any given field/template are not predefined like they might be in other systems or frameworks. The options vary broadly depending on what Fieldtype and Inputfield is in use (all of which are themselves plugin modules that define their own options). Options can also be affected by other plugin modules. Dependencies are also in place, meaning the presence and requirements of some configuration options can depend on the values already present in other options. Further, some Fieldtypes can ride on top of others (like some of the ProFields), maintaining their own configuration along with those of their host. All of these things lend themselves extremely well to a user interface, and greatly benefit the developer in many ways, especially with regard to instruction and documentation. All of these things can be configured from the API, and could certainly be configured from a text file. But I would consider myself very lazy and remiss in my responsibilities if I expected people to use text files (YAML or otherwise) as the primarily method of configuration for this. I sure wouldn't be a happy web developer having to use that. On the other hand, if you are dealing with a system that is limited to predefined options that are self documenting, then I'm sure a text file for configuration is just fine. But there's little point in comparing ProcessWire to such systems, because ProcessWire provides a level of power that goes far beyond that, and far beyond what I think anyone would find desirable to configure from text files. We use a user interface here for exactly what a user interface is meant for.

I'm not aware of anything broken with the caches in 2.4.8, though there was an issue in 2.4.6 that has been fixed. However, it looks like your MySQL version does not meet the minimum requirements. You mentioned you are using 5.0.8-dev, but the minimum required MySQL version is 5.0.15. If I recall, 5.0.8 is the version of MySQL that had some major issues with sorting. I'm not positive on that, or even sure if that MySQL version is the reason why you got an error, but it seems like the most likely possibility so far. If you are able to reproduce the error again, you might try enabling debug mode so that you could see if any other error messages get output. But chances are that there will be incompatibilities between PW and versions of MySQL prior to 5.0.15.

You are right–I'd forgotten we had that in the htaccess. Yes, I'd leave it for now. I just wanted to point them out because I think these will be beneficial for this module once 2.5 is stable. I agree, you don't need it for now. My default is always to double up on security, but thinking through it more it's probably not necessary here. I mention it as a possible future addition though just because the URLs hitting a website aren't always confidential. The token is only as private as the logs. For most of us, that's a non issue. For some it's a potential ddos entry point, but only if the token gets in the wrong hands. I think what you've got is just right for the majority, and if someone needed something more, like an IP limiter, then probably better to leave it to them to add in rather than making everyone else fuss with it. Sorry, I missed that wget was already there. There may be some benefits to having the cron job run the PHP File directly, but it would be more difficult for the user to setup (creating executable PHP shell scripts and such). Also, having initialization of the job URL accessible makes it easier for people to use external CRON services. As a result, I think sticking to the method you are using is better. Thanks for adding to the modules directory!

This looks fantastic djr! I've had a need for something exactly like this and will definitely look forward to using it. I took a quick look through the code and think it looks very well put together. I do have a few minor suggestions: Rather than backing up the DB to the root path (where it is temporarily web accessible) I'd recommend backing it up to a non web accessible directory, like /site/assets/cache/. Likewise for the tar/gz file. Beyond just looking for "runbackup" in the request URI, I recommend designating a page that it will only run on. For instance, if you wanted it to only run on the homepage: $shouldBackup = $page->path === '/' && (strpos($_SERVER['REQUEST_URI'], self::RUN_BACKUP_PATH) !== FALSE) && $this->wire('input')->get->token && $this->wire('input')->get->token === $this->token; This might be a good module to experiment with conditional autoloads. In your getModuleInfo, you can do this: 'autoload' => function() { return (strpos($_SERVER['REQUEST_URI'], self::RUN_BACKUP_PATH) !== FALSE); } In truth, conditional autoloads are more reliable in PW 2.5 (a few minor issues have been fixed) so this may be a v2 kind of thing as well. In PW 2.5, you can also isolate the entire getModuleInfo() to a separate ModuleName.info.php file. Beyond just the token, it might be worthwhile to have an IP address limiter since there's a good chance one's CRON job is always going to be coming from the same IP. Though not sure it's totally necessary. In your docs file, I would mention if possible what command you recommend for the CRON job, for instance: wget quiet no-cache -O - http://www.your-site.com/runbackup?token=abc123 > /dev/null Lastly, might be good to mention that it requires exec/system access for executing commands (many hosts have these disabled by default, but there's usually a way to enable them). Please add to the modules directory when ready! Thanks for putting this together!

Matthew, why were you offline for 4+ hours? This morning's outage was an emergency update planned for all servers, not just a small number. Is the outage you are talking about different from the one that was planned? I'm just curious if your outage is related to the emergency update or if it was something different entirely? In either case, it sounds like your host node has some bad karma or something. Maybe it's worth asking to be switched to a different node in the data center. Just make sure you are communicating directly with them through the portal (or by phone), and not Twitter or other social networks. They are extremely helpful and knowledgeable, but you have to use their secure channels to communicate because they have to maintain client confidentiality. Another thing to consider is that any kind of maintenance that would require taking down a server is something they usually do overnight or early AM, since that's the least busy time (though this kind of maintenance is rare). But in your case, your clients are in Europe (I think?). Whether for scheduling or ping times, maybe it would be beneficial to be in their Amsterdam data center rather than the Reston, VA data center?

Matthew, I got an email about this planned outage last week (planned 15 mins between 5 and 7 am), as did all my clients. Are you sure ServInt has your correct email address on file? The outages are just to reboot the servers (kernel patch only seen after server reboots), and I read the 15 minutes as more like a maximum. If your server is down it sounds like that's something different, you should submit an urgent ticket or call them. It's worth noting that they are fixing a vulnerability that affects most web hosts, not just ServInt, and appears they are fixing it before everyone else. Please let us know what you find out from them as to why your server isn't online.

I've updated this module to version 3 which adds the ability to use headlines as page breaks and adds support for several shortcodes.

You are not already screwed if your writable files aren't executable or don't represent files that can blow up the site. Obviously, the intention is that nobody else can write to the writable files, but the reality is when designing a system we have to plan for the worst. Your environment and my environment may be well secured, but I try to think about the bigger picture out there where there are a lot of insecure environments. Security is #1 when it comes to ProcessWire. What are secure permissions and what are not is dependent on the server and not something we can detect. A security best practice is to get everything important out of any writable files on the file system and not have any single writable files that could take down the whole system. Meaning, I think it's acceptable for cache files, image and other independently served assets to exist as writable files, but the files we're talking about here are definitely out. Another reason we can't detect this stuff is because there are plenty of hosts running phpsuexec and the like where apache runs as the user and everything is writable by default. This tends to be okay, so long as there isn't also a copy of WordPress somewhere on the account. Basically, what are the right permissions for a given site comes down to the server, environment and host, and not ProcessWire. If someone is able to write something to some file on your account, that does not imply they can access the DB. That "someone" is usually an automated script and not a real person, or it's one of your account neighbors on a shared webhost. One of the things that regularly falls in my lap (for better or worse) is to fix hacked WordPress sites. Rarely has the DB been touched, while most of the writable file system has to be quarantined. I disagree. There is a direct connection of field schema to the data represented in the DB. Template files are not coupled to fields like that because you are talking about your code, not the system. You have to make your changes independently regardless of where they are stored. Changing a field doesn't automatically change a template file. But changes to fields are an end-point in terms of how they reflect on the database. I've run out of time for today so have to stop. But I want to be clear that PW is not going to regress to storing this stuff on the file system. I recognize there is a benefit to some developers in having files they can version control or migrate independently. I personally would find the drawbacks to far outweigh the benefits (I have to support this project for a large audience), but understand why some find it desirable. Like I've mentioned, I would consider in the future mirroring the data to files that you can version control and selectively migrate in the admin. I believe that would bring the benefits of what's been discussed here, without the drawbacks.

At some point, I'll setup fields and templates to maintain mirror copies of files on the file system for those that want to version control them that way. They are in the database for very good reasons, but that doesn't mean that they can't be on the filesystem too. It's just that the database is the better default place for them to live and be maintained from for the vast majority. I don't consider writable files particularly trustworthy in the grand scheme, so the master source would always have to be the DB, but the mirror files could certainly be monitored, versioned and migrated at the developers discretion. I have no problem with that so long as we're not letting the file system lead. Something to add here that I think gets overlooked is that PW is not just a development tool. In the majority of cases, the development phase is just a very short blip in the overall timeline of the project developed with ProcessWire (whether a website, application or whatever it is). While we put a lot of focus on the development tool aspect of PW, the big design decisions are made for the entire lifecycle, not just the development phase. CMSs have to be written for large scale realities and diversity across hosting providers, varying amounts of security and expertise levels. While files here seem beneficial from one perspective, that does not translate to a net benefit in the larger context. In fact it translates to something rather undesirable in the larger context. Having important data in writable files on the file system is something you try to avoid with a CMS. While they are a necessary evil in some cases, if you can keep writable data in the DB, it's going to result in stronger security over a broad installation base and over a broad time period. These writable files are often the weakest link on shared hosting accounts. They can be perfectly secure, but there's little doubt the DB is safer. When it comes to data that needs to be editable, I consider the DB a much more trustworthy storage mechanism for important data across a large set of installations. I'm stating the diverse reality of our big picture context and not any individual's server. Some of us are running on servers where it would make no difference at all from a security aspect, but that's not something we can count on. Outside of the situations mentioned in this thread, I think most would not find it desirable to have the field and template data that disconnected from the content it represents. I can imagine some real headaches with schema getting disconnected from the data. When I backup my DB, I like to know that I've got everything necessary to put it back together without having to chase down multiple files with multiple tools, not to mention possibly files in different versions. I don't want to open the door to having having schema files that are not consistent with the data that they are supposed to represent. Data loss is always a possibility with schema changes and should always be accompanied by a confirmation. Automation by movement of schema in files (whether by git or SSH, FTP, etc.) is problematic for a lot of reasons. The issue described about one person's changes overwriting another's may be a potential real world case, but is a non-issue for most of us because we don't migrate those kinds of changes at the DB level, nor do I recommend doing that. I understand that there are challenges for a team of developers having multiple versions of schema, or developers that want to migrate schema changes to a live server in an automated fashion rather than re-playing those changes themselves. I actually think less automation is ultimately a safer solution here, even if not as convenient for some. Though I'm still very enthusiastic about continuous integration projects and doing anything I can to support them. But I do not support moving storage away from the DB as our primary storage for these things. I understand using the file system may seem like a smart choice in certain contexts (and I don't disagree on them), but in the larger context it's not a wise choice. I'll do my best to find ways to mirror the data to files for those that might want this or may benefit from it.