Forum: Radiant CMS 404 error messages

Hello, I tried to install Radiant, it seems to be almost installed,
but the links are broken (and the style sheet is unaccessible). Here's
the content of my /home/charles/www/radiant/public/.htaccess:


# General Apache options
AddHandler fastcgi-script .fcgi
#AddHandler cgi-script .cgi
Options +FollowSymLinks +ExecCGI

# If you don't want Rails to look in certain directories,
# use the following rewrite rules so that Apache won't rewrite certain 
requests
#
# Example:
#   RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} ^/notrails.*
#   RewriteRule .* - [L]

# Redirect all requests not available on the filesystem to Rails
# By default the cgi dispatcher is used which is very slow
#
# For better performance replace the dispatcher with the fastcgi one
#
# Example:
RewriteRule ^(.*)$ dispatch.fcgi [QSA,L]
RewriteEngine On

# If your Rails application is accessed via an Alias directive,
# then you MUST also set the RewriteBase in this htaccess file.
#
# Example:
#   Alias /myrailsapp /path/to/myrailsapp/public
#   RewriteBase /myrailsapp

RewriteRule ^$ index.html [QSA]
RewriteRule ^([^.]+)$ $1.html [QSA]
RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-f
RewriteRule ^(.*)$ dispatch.fcgi [QSA,L]

# In case Rails experiences terminal errors
# Instead of displaying this message you can supply a file here which
will be rendered instead
#
# Example:
#   ErrorDocument 500 /500.html

ErrorDocument 500 "<h2>Application error</h2>Rails application failed
to start properly"





And here's the public page: http://www.auriance.com/radiant/public/
I don't know exactly what to comment/uncomment in .htaccess. Could you
help me please?
Thanks,

Could some one help me please?

--
Charles A. Landemaine.

> # For better performance replace the dispatcher with the fastcgi one
> #
> # Example:
> RewriteRule ^(.*)$ dispatch.fcgi [QSA,L]
> RewriteEngine On


Locate this block. The RewriteRule here isn't supposed to be active. 
Comment
it out like the lines before:

# RewriteRule ^(.*)$ dispatch.fcgi [QSA,L]

Leave the RewriteEngine line as-is.

FYI. http://www.seancribbs.com/ is down

I'm attempting to use Sean's page_attachments extension but I've
installed it, migrated for it, and don't see anything different in my
admin interface.

What am I missing? I looked for info at Sean's site, but its down,
and the README from the extension is empty.

Thanks for any help.

(running locally on OS X / Locomotive / MySQL / Radiant 0.6.1)

-Jim

You came to right place, Jim.  I've been having issues with TxD,
actually - they bot my mongrel process regularly.  The SVN should still
work, though.

Anyway,  I have not finished updating the extension for 0.6.x (nor ldap,
aggregation, mailer, search, oy! the list goes on).  The primary problem
is that it changes the page-edit interface directly by overriding the
template, but it should use another method.  I apologize for my slowness
on this, but I have a couple other projects going full-steam at the
moment.  I might have a chance to update it while flying out of town on
Thursday.  In the meantime, I would graciously accept patches!

Sean

Geez. You'd think that all the money we pay for these extensions
would help... oh, wait. ;-)

Thanks Sean. I appreciate the work.

Updated!

Changes:

* Uses 'facets-lite' for adding the extra UI elements.
* Included 'update' task for copying the JS/CSS files to the public/
folder.  THIS IS REQUIRED FOR IT TO WORK. Use this line:
  rake radiant:extensions:page_attachments:update
* Test helper replaced (although tests may/may not work -- wait for
the next revision)
* Now uses attachment_fu instead of acts_as_attachment.
* Attachments are not deleted until the page is saved.  Accidentally
removed one? Reload the page or navigate away without saving and your
attachment will be preserved.

Caveats/gotchas:

* You must have at least one of RMagick, MiniMagick, or ImageScience
installed for thumbnail generation to work.
* Currently uses public file system for storage.  If you want S3 or DB
storage, DIY (minor changes necessary for S3).
* Uses svn:externals to get the latest attachment_fu.  Not sure if
this will work with an export method (svn gurus please comment?) of
installation.
* REQUIRES Radiant edge r432 or greater (critical enabling change).
To get that, run
  rake radiant:freeze:edge

Sean

On 5/9/07, Sean Cribbs <seancribbs@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Updated!


Sweet!

* Now uses attachment_fu instead of acts_as_attachment.


Interesting. I couldn't make attachment_fu work with Radiant (there were
issues with resolving its internal dependencies).

* Uses svn:externals to get the latest attachment_fu.  Not sure if
> this will work with an export method (svn gurus please comment?) of
> installation.


Why not? It's the same to Rails. It makes a difference depending on how 
you
deploy.

Are you saying the extension doesn't work for you?  I haven't tried it
in instance mode yet.

Sean

Awesome!  I'm looking forward to trying this out.

On 5/9/07, Sean Cribbs <seancribbs@gmail.com> wrote:
> * Uses svn:externals to get the latest attachment_fu.  Not sure if
> this will work with an export method (svn gurus please comment?) of
> installation.

I just tested exporting it... it does indeed grab attachment_fu 
correctly.

Thanks for all your hard work, Sean.

Matt

On 5/9/07, Sean Cribbs <seancribbs@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Are you saying the extension doesn't work for you?  I haven't tried it
> in instance mode yet.


No, the plugin didn't work for me out of the box. I wanted to use
has_attachment on some models in my extension.

Dependencies code was unable to resolve some modules inside AttachmentFu 
so
I needed to require  stuff manually. I talked with Rick Olson and found 
out
the code is perfectly fine, but for some reason doesn't work in a 
Radiant
project.

It was a couple days ago with the latest trunk checkout (then).

Just FYI,

Initially I tried dumping the whole plugin into the lib directory of the
extension, then requiring attachment_fu/init.  That didn't work. Next I
tried taking the contents of init.rb and putting it in the activate
method of the extension, which worked previously.  Still didn't work. I
also tried adding the lib directory of the attachment_fu plugin to the
$LOAD_PATH (ugly hack, I know).  Still didn't work.  In the end I had to
revert to the method I took when I was using acts_as_attachment, and
this can be used in general for any extensions that include plugins in
their lib directory.

1) Take the entire contents of the init.rb file and put it somewhere in
the activate method of your extension.
2) Export or use svn:externals to dump the contents of the plugin's lib
directory.  If there are files in the root of the plugin's lib
directory, you won't be able to use svn:externals.  I had to do this
with 'geometry.rb' from attachment_fu.
3) Et voila!

While there didn't seem to be any fundamental name-collision between
Radiant and attachment_fu, be careful that plugins you include in an
extension don't clash with the ones from other extensions.  In the
future we'll have a way to specify extension dependencies, which should
hopefully abate some issues.

Sean

When installing the extension on my TxD account, I found ImageScience
was not configured properly, or one doesn't have access to compilers
to handle RubyInline or something like that.  If someone else has
gotten this to work, let me know.  Otherwise, you can add this option
to the "has_attachment" call in app/models/page_attachment.rb:

:processor => :Rmagick

Good luck!

Sean

On May 9, 2007, at 2:37 PM, Sean Cribbs wrote:

> * REQUIRES Radiant edge r432 or greater (critical enabling change).
> To get that, run
>   rake radiant:freeze:edge
>
> Sean

Sean,

since this requires r431, are we to assume that there will be no
page_attachments plugin for 0.6.1?

It's a critical blocker, unless you want to go in and edit the
template yourself.  So no.  I assume we'll see 0.6.2 pretty soon.

Sean

Steven Southard wrote:
> Why doesn't page attachments show up in snippets?
>
Because it attaches to a Page?

Cheers,
Mohit.
4/17/2009 | 2:45 AM.

You mean because the name is page attachments?  I think it'd be
convenient to locate attachments in snippets too.  Snippets need
images just as much at pages.  If a snippet had images maybe pages
wouldn't need quite as many.  I guess, next your going to tell me
layouts don't need attachments either.  Sure would be convenient.

Steven

Steven,

Attachments can be inherited from parent pages. So if you attach an
image to your Home page, then it will be available to all pages,
layouts and snippets.

Page attachments is a bit fussy: when you ask for a file that doesn't
belong to the current page (or its ancestors) it raises an exception.
It could be dangerous if you were to call <r:attachment
name="image.jpg"/> in a snippet or layout. If that snippet/layout was
called from a page which didn't have "image.jpg" attached, and nor did
any of its ancestors, then an exception would be raised, and the page
would not render. However, if you attached a "image.jpg" file to the
home page, then it would be available to every page in the site, and
the problem above would be avoided.

Of course, you could attach an "image.jpg" file to any section. Then
that section, and all its ancestors would use that file instead of the
one attached to the home page.

Does that make sense? The inheritance mechanism means that you can
treat page attachments in a similar fashion to page parts. When you
look at it that way, it should no longer seem necessary to be able to
attach files to snippets and layouts.

Cheers,
Drew

"inherited from parent pages"

Yeah that makes perfect sense and I'm glad I understand it now.

That's useful information.  Anyone using textile editor?  It's pretty
cool but I was thinking the add image could use a little souping up.
It'd be nice if when you selected attachments it'd show all the
attachments that it inherits.  Does that sound useful to anyone else?
I keep going back and forth in which is better attachments or
paperclipped they both are very useable and surprisingly different.



Steven

HI Steven

Steven Southard wrote:
> You mean because the name is page attachments?  I think it'd be 
> convenient to locate attachments in snippets too.  Snippets need 
> images just as much at pages.  If a snippet had images maybe pages 
> wouldn't need quite as many.  I guess, next your going to tell me 
> layouts don't need attachments either.  Sure would be convenient.

I'm sorry if my answer came across as rude/ mean (cut me some slack - it
was sent at 2:45AM) - I didn't mean just the name.  I meant to imply
that it attaches to pages and is designed for that, while snippets often
are included in multiple pages and may have different contexts.  (I have
some times used a single known page as the base referred from snippets).

But definitely the explanation that followed my email was better!

Cheers,
Mohit.
4/17/2009 | 1:03 PM.

Great suggestion!  I've added it as an issue on GitHub.  I don't have
time to implement it right now, but I'd welcome patches/forks. 
http://github.com/jgarber/radiant-textile_editor-e...
1

Jason

Mohit Sindhwani wrote:
> * BlogTags
> I found this in page_attachments\app\models\page_attachment.rb:
>
>  has_attachment :storage => :file_system,
>                 :thumbnails => defined?(PAGE_ATTACHMENT_SIZES) && 
> PAGE_ATTACHMENT_SIZES || {:icon => '50x50>'},
>                 :max_size => 10.megabytes
>
> This tends to suggest that files up to 10MB should be fine?  Any idea 
> what I should look for?  (I'm on Windows, running Radiant 0.7.1 on 
> ruby 1.8.6)

*bump*

Cheers,
Mohit.
5/24/2009 | 9:33 PM.

Mohit Sindhwani wrote:
>> I found this in page_attachments\app\models\page_attachment.rb:
> *bump*
I suggest you drop page_attachments in favor of Paperclipped. It's
easier to manage image sizes and mime-types (you can do both with the
settings extension) and page_attachments will prevent you from using the
change_author extension (I got bitten by this one) if you decide to use
it. It's also much easier to use in day-to-day operations with its
bucket that will allow you to upload and attach images from the same 
place.



~Nate

N. Turnage wrote:
>>>
>>
>> *bump*
>
>
> I suggest you drop page_attachments in favor of Paperclipped. It's 
> easier to manage image sizes and mime-types (you can do both with the 
> settings extension) and page_attachments will prevent you from using 
> the change_author extension (I got bitten by this one) if you decide 
> to use it. It's also much easier to use in day-to-day operations with 
> its bucket that will allow you to upload and attach images from the 
> same place.
Hi Nate,

Thanks for the advice.  I'm tempted to use PageAttachments firstly
because I was using it earlier :) and the site I'm trying to do is a
technical articles site, so it makes a lot of sense to attach images to
the pages on which the articles appear.  Admittedly, I've not used
PaperClipped so I"m not sure if that's how it works - but the talk of
buckets (that I've heard elsewhere also) tends to suggest common pools
rather than page-wise attachments.  However, I have need for
Paperclipped also for certain types of site-wide needs, but I'm scared
to even start putting Paperclipped and PageAttachments together :P

Cheers,
Mohit.
5/24/2009 | 10:26 PM.

On 24.05.2009, at 16:26, Mohit Sindhwani wrote:

>>>> files (tried up to 14KB) but larger files (more than 30KB) seem  
>>>> idea what I should look for?  (I'm on Windows, running Radiant  
>> operations with its bucket that will allow you to upload and attach  
> need for Paperclipped also for certain types of site-wide needs, but  
> I'm scared to even start putting Paperclipped and PageAttachments  
> together :P
>
> Cheers,
> Mohit.
> 5/24/2009 | 10:26 PM.


Hello Mohit,

paperclipped comes with a fine installation routine that even imports
your old attachments (and images) and moves them to it's default
location. Look at the github page, there should be a rake task for
mirgration form page_attachments. At least that's how i remember it -
i mirgrated only one image, but it shoudl still work with more than
one ;)

And paperclipped does use a central media pool BUT you still are able
to attach items to pages, so you can, as you woudl do with
page_attachments before, access attachments on pages and get only the
ones attached to this page (but you also cold use som arbitratry ones
by direktly including them)
The  radiant tags are a bit different, but cycling throuhg attachments
and testing for them (with mime type filters) is an easy task.

So the attachments thing is still in there. The bucket is for
attaching items to different pages. You add them to the bucket "to
carry them around", and then you can attach items form the bucket to
pages you're editing.

So all in all (and that's the reason i switched) paperclipped is more
flexible and offers a superset of functionality over page_attachments.

Greetings
michael


>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Radiant mailing list
> Post:   Radiant@radiantcms.org
> Search: http://radiantcms.org/mailing-list/search/
> Site:   http://lists.radiantcms.org/mailman/listinfo/radiant


___m i c h a e l   s t a r k e____
        co-founder of
        HicknHack Software GbR
        www.hicknhack.com
        Graphics

___c o n t a c t____
        +49 (170) 3686136
        +49 (351) 4045428
        contact@hicknhack.com

___H i c k n H a c k   S o f t w a r e   G b R____
        maik lathan - andreas reischuck - michael starke
        hübnerstraße 8
        01069 dresden - germany

michael starke wrote:
> to attach items to pages, so you can, as you woudl do with 
>
> So all in all (and that's the reason i switched) paperclipped is more 
> flexible and offers a superset of functionality over page_attachments.

Hi Michael

That's a very convincing case - I'm going to try PaperClipped.  For one
of my sites, I'll leave it at PageAttachments for the time being, but
for the one I'm working on, I'm going to try Paperclipped.

Cheers,
Mohit.
5/24/2009 | 10:45 PM.