Jump to content

arjen

Members
  • Content Count

    1,218
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

arjen last won the day on October 17 2018

arjen had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,368 Excellent

About arjen

  • Rank
    Hero Member
  • Birthday 03/10/1982

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://arjenblokzijl.nl
  • Skype
    arjenblokzijl

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Hoogeveen, The Netherlands

Recent Profile Visitors

18,855 profile views
  1. I can't agree more. Of course there is a logical explanation behind the current situation - there mostly always is. But the open PR's could easily be interpret as a "stale" project. Of course this is not the case as ProcessWire is one of the most worked on CMS. By mostly one guy (not to undercut the other module contributors, lots of love there). Which on itself is pretty amazing. Therefore this is true too: ProcessWire finds itself positioned in a very difficult spot. To clients this isn't very much a problem, since I always find it to be reason of the professional to sell its tools to their client. But selling the CMS to other developers/companies is a lot more difficult. There are quite a few pain points such as the open PR's, the first impressions of the master branch (last commit: 21 dec 2018), the already dated design of the website, the lack of github stars. When I Google for ProcessWire the repository of Ryan is even on a higher position than the current repository (last commit: 7 Oct 2016). The notice on top isn't very clear. These are not important to me*, but first impressions do matter. [off-topic]We should really highlight these strong points: the really great custom field CMS, the speed of development (example: the .wepb support), the great (paid) modules, the great community, second-to-none multilingual support, the great documentation and the greatly written blogs too! Ryan has his way with words.[/off-topic] * I had to look twice myself ๐Ÿ˜
  2. Agreed. It makes sense from a security point of view, but I've encoutered numerous people who browse in one browser while their default browser is another one. They are not even aware.
  3. I don't think Ryan will read this. You would have more luck if you create a request on Github.
  4. Hi, I agree it is a bit hidden, but it is here -> https://processwire.com/api/ref/page/#pwapi-methods-constants.
  5. Thanks for getting back on this. I'll try some stuff out.
  6. You can use the Connect Page Fields module by @Robin S. This makes it easy to connect both page fields.
  7. Thanks! This is what got me thinking as well since I use a lot of generated classes (also in PHP and JS). How well a job does purgecss do with those? I know you can whitelist classes, but it feels cumbersome to maintain it.
  8. Great looking site! I'm pretty interested in Tailwind too. I'd love to hear some pointers on your set-up and workflow? How do you guys handle the filesize? I've read about Purgecss and I'm curious how integrate this with ProcessWire.
  9. The map still seems broken. It would be really sweet if Ryan could put the website code on Github so other people can contribute as well through PR's.
  10. Sounds like a great week ๐Ÿ™‚
  11. Ah, the or groups selector post ๐Ÿ™‚ We really needed this a few years ago. Unfortunately Ryan did not manage to implement this. No hard feelings though since this is not an easy task. But I do believe it should be developed since this is a big USP over other rule builders. ProcessWire can really shine with these kind of data structures. I eventually created a Process module which created pages has a sort of multiplier field of InputfieldSelector. The client could scope the main selector and add groups by adding more selectors. - Main Selector template=foo (InputfieldSelector) |-- Selector 1 (OR) somevalue=bar (repeatable field with InputfieldSelector) |-- Selector 2 (OR) someothervalue=foobar (etc) This fields eventually resolved in: "template=foo, (somevalue=bar), (someothervalue=foobar)". I created another Process Module we rendered these selectors in a list and created urls (using the great ProcessPageListerUrls). This might feel like overkill, but the client wanted to query complex selectors.
  12. This seems like a really nice ux update. I really like you improving existing functionality. Thanks!
  13. Thanks @tiefenbacher_bluetomato really looking forward to the demo.
ร—
ร—
  • Create New...