• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


pideluxe last won the day on February 22 2015

pideluxe had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

64 Excellent

About pideluxe

  • Rank
    Full Member
  • Birthday 11/13/1974

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Freiburg, Germany

Recent Profile Visitors

3,760 profile views
  1. Sounds great, thanks for the quick answer!
  2. Is it not possible to use recurme within an Repeater? In Repeater Matrix it works, so it is not a big problem, but for my purpose a repeater would suffice... BTW great module and support, Joshua!
  3. Hey joss, like that little hanna-snippet. But why are you using it in this situation? Would it be not better having a page reference field selecting the tags?
  4. Really nice features! But sounds really not easy to use for everybody right away, maybe it could be a baseplate for theming in pw. Maybe sharing a future version which is less specific would make more sense.
  5. Would be great if you would that module with us.
  6. Hi diogo, really nice site, your minimalistic style fits really well to the artistic magazine and i love the typography. As a little sidenote, i noticed a little glitch when viewing at smaller width: the "hamburger" and shop icon are placed over text when scrolling.
  7. +1 for sharing your work
  8. hi, there buddy ;-) it would be nice if you post your nice modules for all.
  9. My name suggestion would be: RockettForms
  10. Thanks for all your thoughts about this (especially the beardman). Maybe my first post did not express what i wanted to say. Draft and versioning isn't a must for being in core, but a free available module with reduced functionality would be good. Sure, you could build that by yourself and PW makes it easy, but for one coming from an other CMS this is not the best answer for convincing to switch to PW. I agree that versioning is not needed in every situation, but a workflow or being able to preview a pagewihtout publishing are often demanded features also here in the forum. Everyone who is evaluating PW for using it for a larger scale website or working in a team asks for this.So telling them: "yes, it's available, but only if you pay something" (regardless how cheap it is), may they move along looking for others. It comes down to the question: what is the fundamental functionality a free CMS should offer. And here are the opinions different from one to another, so Ryan as the leader is settling the path where PW is heading.
  11. In his latest blog post, Ryan annouces his works on the ProDraft-module for handling publishing workflows. While this is really great news, there is, at least in my opinion, the drawback that this module is a Pro-module. I really appreciate the tons of work Ryan puts into PW and see the need for getting some money back not being able to do work for some clients. I also like the idea of the Pro-modules, where advanced functions not needed by anybody is sold at a moderate price, i myself have bought some Pro-modules already. But such fundamental functionality like draft-versioning or defining a workflow for publishing should be in the core and made open source. I would like to raise a discussion about this, how it could be solved or what other developers think. All other major open source CMS have versioning integrated, so this a field where pw lacks behind and the chance with making that in core would open more opportunities for attracting more people using PW. But then getting this functionality only by paying a decent amount could draw them immediately back without getting the beauty of PW: Some solutions to solve this that cross my mind: Sponsoring: Already Avoine has sponsored some other modules being developed by Ryan, so maybe they or other companies that need drafting could stepin. Crowd-Sponsoring: If there is not one company or individual taking over the sponsoring, why not community fund this like a kickstarter-project? I think, most of us could spent at least the amount the Pro-module would cost or even more to make it open for public. Making only support Pro: Now all the Pro-modules get higher priority support by Ryan. Not only being the only person doing this, but maybe the only individual capable of supporting all the modules at moment, this can become a bottleneck in the future. Being open source, others can work on adding functionality and bug tracking and Ryan could concentrate on supporting. Other CMS are already doing this more or less (i.e. Acquia for Drupal). What do you think, should fundamental functionalities stay available in core for all or only being available as Pro?
  12. Hi Caelan, at the moment i think the easiest way would be to disable the site while updating, make changes to fields and templates and upload your local template-folder to your live-folder. But to really answer your question, we need some more infos from you : Why do you want to copy the live DB to local DB? Do you need pages from the live DB to be backuped? Especially the users, why do you need to import them in the local DB? There a some articles in the forum which deal with this issue, the topic is continious integration or something like this.
  13. You are saying that building custom applications in PW with the "everything is page"-mantra has its limitations - and that's right! No one has said, that every possible application can and should be built with PW-pages. PW is a Content Managment Framework, and for most of the contents you need for the web, its possibilities are more than enough. I think it is not fair by judging over PW while developing an ecommerce-application as your first application. Look at most of online-shopping suites like Magento or Prestashop, how difficult they were to develop just with php(-frameworks). Some applications are not best suited for PW (or any other CMS), at least with not building some helping modules or components, which could make it easier for plug the application together. Just another thought: would you have considered any other CMS with its built-in editing & API to develop an ecommerce solution on top of that?
  14. Thanks for the replies, so this has not to be on the wishlist, it is already there! Maybe we could build an integration into the backend.
  15. Would it be possible to configure a different path to the templates for different users/roles? E.g. for the user admin the templates reside in the folder /site/dev-templates/ and for all others users the templates lie in the folder /site/templates/? With this, you could have a production-version of your templates and when logging in as a special user you can work on your development-version simultaneously. Maybe there could be a function to check-in ready templates to the production-version.