Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Make ClientConfig Extra aware of context settings #46

Open
bequadrat opened this issue Feb 5, 2015 · 4 comments
Open

Make ClientConfig Extra aware of context settings #46

bequadrat opened this issue Feb 5, 2015 · 4 comments

Comments

@bequadrat
Copy link

I'd like to use @Mark-H 's great ClientConfig extra in pretty much any project, but unfortunately it's currently not able to set context settings (only system settings afaik). So if you have multiple contexts (like a multi-language website, landing pages outside the main context or complete multiple websites powered by one MODX install), there's no other way to let a client edit specific context settings than to give a technically unexperienced client access to all the context settings. And you don't want that :-)

So maybe we could improve that? It would make the "customer experience" of MODX for end-users with multi-context-sites so much more secure and intuitive.

@mindeffects
Copy link
Contributor

Not letting users edit parts of the e.g. settings is a lacking features of MODX itself. By restricting the user to certain namespaces (#47), it would be possible to bring those features to MODX itself. @theboxer might agree on that?

@bequadrat
Copy link
Author

Yup, #47 would indeed make ClientConfig a little bit obsolete :-) On the other hand, I suppose extending ClientConfig would be much simpler to achieve as a first step.

@Mark-H
Copy link

Mark-H commented Feb 5, 2015

Obsolete? Nahhhh, the interface would still be more appropriate for clients than the settings grid ;)

Will happily sit with some people with UX skills and smart devs to figure out how to implement this from both the user and back-end perspective this weekend.

@bequadrat
Copy link
Author

Ok, "obsolete" might be the wrong word here. Let's say "less required" :-)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants