When referencing an warehoused image I have always used full path. But now that I’m “converting” to SSL on my site and all those images are entered as “http://” I’m thinking that there is probably a better “best practice.” But doesn’t RW only preview the image corrrectly if it’s a full path?
Not exactly. You can use a relative path to the resources folder and it will preview. However using the RW resources folder for images is not the best way to use warehoused images.
What RW doesn’t do and really should be doing, is to facilitate a way to add a relative path based on the site URL set in the RW General settings. That way, you could use an address such as /warehouse/icons which would be translated into http://mysite.com/warehouse/icons or https://mysite.com/warehouse/icons or whatever it changes to.
Now that is true! That would be a great improvement! (I don’t use Resources… I ftp to server and use full path.)
Warehousing to your own server -
and absorb the overhead, assuming you get enough traffic to sufficient levels,
warehousing to external sites, dropbox folders, etc?
The Warehouse Stack by Yuzool looks interesting.
How does one use it?
images are on my server… large files (video, audio, etc) are on Amazon S3 storage.
That’s a great use @1611mac
@Runamok you can warehouse to your own server just to keep your RapidWeaver project light and fast. Or if you want to improve load performance of the site perhaps use Amazon S3 / dropbox for large assets. It depends on how you work and what kind of site you are building.
Maybe as a rule of thumb, if your RapidWeaver project file starts to approach 100MB it’s time to use warehousing for that project?
If all your request for images from http:// work with https://
and you want to change the request to
might want to check out adding this to your head:
<meta http-equiv="Content-Security-Policy" content="upgrade-insecure-requests">
It’s explained here on Google - Please read as there may be some impact:
Try experimenting a little, seems like as long as you’re careful then there won’t be any difficulty reverting back. Thanks for the post. I am really looking forward to implementing Drop-Box with my site(s).
If you’re referring to DropBox https://www.dropbox.com then you cannot use it as a source for files on a website. You used to be able to do that but they have implemented procedures to prevent it.
Excellent idea, Gary. I’m a newbie to RW and have been trying work out how to do this easily. Putting in the full URL for each image, in an image heavy site, is so painful.
Cyberduck has the facility to copy the full url of the image to the clipboard
Thanks Philip, will check it out. I initially thought RW would solve my problem when rebuilding my website but, whilst it is good and much easier than hand coding, for my particular needs, it doesn’t go quite far enough. Understand why and all that, but…
This is simple but it works for me…
1.) I use Yummy FTP with a Yummy FTP Alias. The Yummy Alias is a “droplet” that sits on your desktop (or anywhere you want.) Simply drop you image on the Yummy Alias and it uploads to your server to the folder you defined (ie: images, resources, etc). Thus, uploading an image is as easy as dropping it on an icon.
2.) As for the full path url I use a Keyboard Maestro macro. But this could be setup with any number of OSX utilities. I set a Hotkey to enter “https://www.mywebsite.com/images/” then all I need type is the image file name.
At some point I have typically copied the name of the image (in OSX finder), usually when sizing or optimizing the image. Thus, to enter the image name in RW it’s a matter of hitting my Hotkey and then control P for paste.
This works nicely for me, you may not like it. But by using a hotkey in conjunction with copying the filename in the finder and pasting it, I eliminate the frustration of having typed an error when entered into RW.
How to Speed up the updating process?
Have a look at https://instacks.com/repositorystack/, where you are able to copy the link of the image directly to the clipboard.
Thanks Jannis. I found your Rep Stack this morning and it certainly looks helpful. Will definitely look at it more closely when my RW and stacks overload wears off a bit.
I want to give some applause for the repository stack here: the repository stack is such a great stack for warehousing - and more! especially when you have sites which are not built arround a full featured CMS and especially when you have clients who are not familiar with using „a real" ftp client.
nice features to organize files, search files, preview files, check pixel dimensions of images, copy paths - and super easy to use within your browser just with a simple login.
I am looking forward to future enhancements to that stack as it has become a must have stack in every project immediately.
in addition I like to use it as some kind of backup for content used on a site, may it be warehoused or not. It´s always nice to have stuff that is used in the final published site in one central location, without all the clutter that comes when you build a website (image-version-X.jpg etc.).
it´s also helpful for sharing files with the client - and unclutter email mailboxes on both sides.
I agree it is a fantastic stack and its backed up by Jannis’ fantastic prompt support too.
I took Pauls explanation and advise onboard some time back and do not regret doing so.
I use Text-expander snippets with the naming chore - saves endless time oh and potential typo errors