I’m about to design a website for a customer and annoy me again about a few stacks of developers who are mentally still in the 90s. Just about every customer wants CMS today. But there are still new stacks (sometimes really cool stacks) released that can not use warehoused images. Images must be inserted in RapidWeaver using drag & drop. This makes them absolutely useless for any CMS website.
I think it’s not Rocket Sience to add a few lines of code to use warehoused images. That would certainly improve the usability for professional websites. I mean the use of warehoused images should be the minimum requirement these days.
5 Likes
Vote with your wallet.
At the end of the day the vast majority of RW users don’t warehouse. A tiny minority do it. But at the end of the day don’t spend on those stacks that don’t work for you. If it bothers the devs, they’ll change their approach. If not, they won’t.
3 Likes
I’m with you Wolf, the majority of my images are warehoused, often on different hosts to keep the size of the RW project file reasonable. I have a free Cloudinary account and that works very well hosting images, audio files and documents that then appear on various websites.
I’d disagree that it is only a ‘tiny majority’ of RW users who warehouse images, but then I probably move in different circles so who an I to judge.
1 Like
I may be wrong, but it’s my understanding that the majority of RW users don’t use Stacks, so I think it’s safe to assume the majority don’t warehouse.
1 Like
I have no way of knowing, so I can’t pass comment on that.
This is why I built the image shim stack in Total CMS. It allows you to use most other image stacks that do not support warehousing.
2 Likes
@jamesbond
thanks for your comment, vote with your wallet - that’s the best way, but you have to buy the stack first to see what it can do. Mostly there is no information about how pictures can be used.
The first versions of RW may have been aimed at beginners. In the meantime, RW combined with stacks is an excellent tool for creating professional websites. Therefore, it is annoying if basic functions are not supported by some developers. It is also strange to say that the majority of RW users do not use warehousing images - it is not always possible, so it can not be used at all. That is the self-fulfilling prophecy.
@jamesbond
I’m talking about stacks here. Therefore RW users who do not use stacks are not relevant for a discussion about warehousing images within stacks.
@joeworkman
I well know this stack and it is a very good solution sometimes. It works fine with single image stacks, but a lot of stacks use child stacks today. Then it don’t work.
Not within Stacks, and the new inbuilt remote resources feature also allows you to use warehoused images outside of Stacks also.
1 Like
Let me know what stack and we can try to shim it 
Maybe on the hangout this Friday.
That’s exactly what I mean. Even RW now supports simple warehousing with recources. But that does not help much if you can only use images via drag and drop in a stack.
Yes, that’s a good point. My bad on that one.
I guess my point really is that the majority don’t use warehousing, Stacks or no Stacks. I stand over that comment. Hell, most RW users are scared shitless by FTP! So, I don’t think it’s fair to say warehousing images is a basic function.
Essentially though we’re both saying the same thing, or more precisely I agree with you, modern stacks should support warehousing, if for no other reason than warehousing images is a far cleaner and better way to handle images and it should be promoted, dropping them into RW is daft. But, that doesn’t take away from the fact that most (IMO) don’t do it, so it’s understandable that some devs don’t support it.
1 Like
It is more of a general problem. It also does not affect 10-year-old stack, but current stacks. Since it is simply annoying if basic functions are not available. I am not a developer, but I think it is not very complicated to integrate the function in every new stack.
Would be a pretty cool side app that could take your login information from RapidWeaver and import it. Then you name a folder that gets put on the main index area of the server and you can easily drag and drop images onto it and it would spit out the URL for that image. Copy and paste that into a warehouse image stack and boom, you are done.
1 Like
I think there are a lot apps available e.g. CloudMounter. Although it does not copy the login data automatically from RW but each user must also enter in RW so that he can connect to the server. But then you have a folder on the desktop in which you can easily drag the pictures or data as a normal Mac folder. Very simple to use.
This is already possible with the awesome Repository Stack, your File Management App for Rapidweaver:
4 Likes
Buy Go CMS Unlimited from YabDab. Currently half off for $75. I bought it and it works perfectly. Clients can make edits directly on the site without having to go elsewhere. Already implemented it into two client sites. Check it out at https://www.yabdab.com/stacks/go-cms
How is your answer related to the original question?
Hey Tyler, thanks for posting your CMS opinion. It was helpful to me.
1 Like
Can a client add pages with Go CMS Unlimited? Can any RW CMS add pages similar to WP? I know Armadillo can add pages as posts, but I need something that will add pages for clients.
That’s possible with Pulse CMS.
1 Like