Pages?

[PurpleEdge]

... or is it just the wish for coders to see a system that is as "clean" as possible?

Yes, that is the answer. If there was some other purpose for these pages then maybe they could be justified, but if they are just to allow clean URLs then alternative techniques which are "cleaner" should be used.

It also affects the code needed to create the pages for every new page, and delete and re-create them when the page name is changed etc etc.

[Argos]

I'll weigh in here because the essentially-empty pages that website baker creates annoy me too. It's not a problem for sites with only a few pages, but what about sites with hundreds of pages?

I'm not a coder, so maybe I don't understand the problem, but what's wrong wit even hundreds of empty pages? The're just empty files and folders on your webspace, without any impact on space or speed as far as I know. I try to understand what's the problem exactly... or is it just the wish for coders to see a system that is as "clean" as possible? Like I want to build HTML/CSS that is as clean as possible, even if sloppier code may works just as well in reality?

[Waldschwein]

Hello!

I know that problem with the /pages - and it is really not really the best way. The only problem about it as I said before: WebsiteBaker is a PHP4 CMS, not a PHP5. It is working not only on Apache servers, but also on Microsoft IIS.
In fact due that "requirements" it's not easy to get rid of the (in my eyes) not admin-friendly pages. I think - when WebsiteBaker is moving away from that pages (I hope) quite not a single frontend module is working anymore, also quite much has to be recoded in Core. That would be a good step - but a really big one. So that's a task for the new-coded upcoming new version, but not for WebsiteBaker 2.x.
I don't know if there were attempts to get rid of /pages - but if there were, they are only custom recodes, that might not work anywhere else... And will explode the whole CMS, if there is installed "a normal" add-on.

Yours Michael

[PurpleEdge]

I'll weigh in here because the essentially-empty pages that website baker creates annoy me too. It's not a problem for sites with only a few pages, but what about sites with hundreds of pages?

If there is an easy way to eliminate the need for them, then I'm all for it!

I'm interested at the moment, in particular, because I have been referred to the ModX cms, which is similar to WB in many ways, and doesn't use empty pages! I would prefer to stick with WB because I am starting to get to know it, but the empty pages annoy me, and are not necessary with a few simple lines in the htaccess file - as explained at the ModX site!

So, if someone can explain to me what I need to do - I'm listening!

[Argos]

Why does WB have pages? Surley WB needs only one page that queries the DB with an ID that is posted to it...

Why do you ask? Is it for some reason, or just curiosity?

[Waldschwein]

Hello!

Please consider .htaccess is _not_ a system requirement of WebsiteBaker 2.8! There are also non-apache configurations like IIS or some with PHP in CGI mode.

In the end everybody can get rid easily of "pages" - just delete the folder /pages and define it in the settings of WB.

Why there is pages - I think it has to do with the placebo .phps for every site. Consider Ryan wrote this in 2004 with compatibility to PHP4.1. http://web.archive.org/web/20041103010806/www.WebsiteBaker.org/pages/home.html

Yours Michael

[orko3001]

It's not even a mod...

[orko3001]

My answer is 99% yes (if not 100%). It's only an upload of a simple text file. It's not a full upgrade of the system. The better question is - should the users be denied the opportunity to learn about this simple trick?

Cheers

[kweitzel]

The real answer can only be given by Ryan. But ask yourself a question:

Would you be able to use mod rewrite in this extend like in your Link? Even if yes, 99% of our users can not. Should they be denied SEO and human friendly URLs?

cheers

Klaus

[orko3001]

Again you don't need pages to have 'meaningful' and 'human friendly' urls:

http://roshanbh.com.np/2008/03/url-rewriting-examples-htaccess.html

so why have them?

[Argos]

Meaningful page urls look better for people, are more easy to understand, remember, and communicate. Sites are primarily for people, not for search engines. Sometimes the technically most efficient way is not the best way.

[orko3001]

Yes, so if it's not better for search engines what other reason is there?

[danfuh]

You don't need mod_rewrite to get clean and searchengine riendly urls

[Luisehahne]

Think it's better for searchenginges

Dietmar

[orko3001]

Why does WB have pages? Surley WB needs only one page that queries the DB with an ID that is posted to it...

Cheers.