<treyhunner>
can ghost blogs have multiple authors? I'm considering using Sandstorm to setup Ghost for a blog that will probably have about 5 authors, all of which I'd like to use separate accounts.
larjona has joined #sandstorm
<paulproteus>
treyhunner: I don't know for sure if Ghost supports that. Try "Sharing" a Ghost blog instance with yourself in an incognito window.
<paulproteus>
Hi larjona I have a fix for you I think but I was going to go to sleep but maybe I can dig it up now.
<treyhunner>
paulproteus: it seemed to log me in as myself
<paulproteus>
treyhunner: I'd look at the app list and see who the maintainer is and ask them.
<paulproteus>
The maintainer in Sandstorm.
<paulproteus>
IMHO it *should* support multi-user, so if it doesn't, that's a packaging bug.
<treyhunner>
paulproteus: thanks will do
<paulproteus>
WordPress in Sandstorm does, and WordPress in Sandstorm turns into a static publishing system since Sandstorm wget's the content and only serves the static files to anonymous users.
<treyhunner>
there is a users setting within Ghost but it just says that it failed to invite users whenever I try
<paulproteus>
Which I think is some crazy awesome combination of ridiculous and excellent.
<paulproteus>
This causes an app to synchronize its URLs with the Sandstorm top bar.
<paulproteus>
Ohhhhhh I don't think this interacts well with sharing links.
<paulproteus>
Let me test that.
<paulproteus>
Yeah, filing a bug now.
<treyhunner>
I may end up switching to Wordpress for now
<treyhunner>
paulproteus: do you know the recommended flow for adding a user to Wordpress?
<paulproteus>
Yeah, use sandstorm sharing, then ask the user to log in with e.g. Google Login, then they're auto-logged in
<treyhunner>
from experimenting it seems like 1. create contributor link for sharing 2. have user login using that link and reveal identity 3. upgrade user to author from my account
<paulproteus>
Yup
<treyhunner>
or should I share an author link and then they can register/login with author priviliges as needed
<paulproteus>
You could also make an Author sharing link rather than Contributor sharing link
<treyhunner>
ok got it
<paulproteus>
I would say share the privileges you want, rather than make it multi-step.
<paulproteus>
++
<paulproteus>
You should still file that Ghost bug fwiw imho rofl lol abbr
<paulproteus>
I mean actually fwiw imho you should file it.
<treyhunner>
paulproteus: agreed will do
<larjona>
Hi paulproteus. I was afk, reading the backlog now
<paulproteus>
Cool (-:
<paulproteus>
If you can test out the JS thing, that'd be great.
<paulproteus>
I'll probably go to sleep soon, and if you need to wait until later, that's fine.
<larjona>
I'll try to test it now, but if you want to go to sleep, no problem, don't wait just for me.
<paulproteus>
I'll be up for another 10ish minutes for other reasons anyway.
<paulproteus>
OK I seem to be done with my life's things and will now go fall asleep. Talk to you tomorrow my time, larjona !
<larjona>
night!!
<larjona>
and thanks
jadewang has joined #sandstorm
jadewang has quit [Ping timeout: 252 seconds]
jadewang has joined #sandstorm
jadewang has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
jadewang has joined #sandstorm
jadewang has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
dwrensha has quit [Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.91.1 [Firefox 39.0/20150630154324]]
dwrensha has joined #sandstorm
mort___ has joined #sandstorm
larjona has quit [Quit: Konversation terminated!]
balrog has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds]
mort___ has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
jadewang has joined #sandstorm
balrog has joined #sandstorm
jadewang has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
peterood has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
mattl has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
augustl has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
coyotebush_ has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
coyotebush has joined #sandstorm
larjona has joined #sandstorm
hunterm has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
YuviPanda has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<paulproteus>
"Our objective is to provide a new mechanism for allowing sites to easily separate their content into separate, flexible synthetic origins while serving content from a single physical origin" : D
<paulproteus>
I seem to recall there's some reason this isn't good enough for something we do but I haven't read it in detail yet.
<maurer>
LaTeX is huge, so that's probably reasonable
<larjona>
LaTeX, you know
NOTevil has joined #sandstorm
jeffmendoza has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
jeffmendoza has joined #sandstorm
<zarvox>
Piwik is 84M, mostly PHP dependencies pulled in with composer and JS dependencies pulled in with npm/bower that I have to include in their entirety for sanity
<jparyani>
until we've moved everything to packages, I don't think it's much worse than the way it is now
<jparyani>
and i need it to be in a package so that I can have it `use` other packages
<dwrensha>
could it somehow take its dependencies as an input?
<dwrensha>
SandstormPreMeteor(dependencies), where `depedencies` has useGrain and such
gopar has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<dwrensha>
I'm still astonished that Meteor lets this happen
<dwrensha>
I guess I just didn't release that "global" doesn't mean "package-global". It means "global-global"
<zarvox>
Meteor does not do much in terms of isolation
<zarvox>
I really wish it did more.
<dwrensha>
when you make a package, you have to explicitly export things, right?
<zarvox>
Yeah, that's true.
<zarvox>
At least for use outside that package.
<zarvox>
Within the package, it's still anything-goes, IIRC.
* paulproteus
imagines zarvox making a package for every JS function
<paulproteus>
: D
<dwrensha>
so what does "global scope" inside of the package mean?
<dwrensha>
it's not exported
<dwrensha>
but it includes stuff from the app
<dwrensha>
like `useGrain()`
<zarvox>
if your package has multiple files, that scope is visible to all of them?
<zarvox>
what do you mean about useGrain()?
<dwrensha>
`useGrain()` is defined in shell/server/proxy.js
<dwrensha>
and it's being used in shell/packages/sandstorm-pre-meteor/..
<zarvox>
ahh, and used in pre-meteor line 107
<dwrensha>
I'll bet it only works because useGrain() is being used in a function body
<dwrensha>
like, if you tried to refer to it from top-level scope you'd get `undefined`
<zarvox>
and by the time you get to invoking that function, useGrain is in global scope
<dwrensha>
yeah, and the weird thing is it's a *different* global scope
<zarvox>
why is wwwHandlerForGrain even in pre-meteor?
<paulproteus>
Can I just say, I love tests? God I love tests.
<paulproteus>
How bad should I feel about adding more round-trips to the Sandcats registration process that the e.g. install script does? *ponders*
<dwrensha>
So, unbound global variables in Meteor packages are dynamically scoped. :\
<dwrensha>
I wonder whether this is considered a bug or not?
<dwrensha>
" Each package that you use in your app exists in its own separate namespace, meaning that it sees only its own global variables and any variables provided by the packages that it specifically uses. "
<zarvox>
Except that that function mints a new function at runtime
<zarvox>
at which point the functions it's calling are already in the global scope
<zarvox>
so there's no static enforcement possible
<dwrensha>
"Technically speaking, globals in an app (as opposed to in a package) are actually true globals. They can't be captured in a scope that is private to the app code, because that would mean that they wouldn't be visible in the console during debugging! This means that app globals actually end up being visible in packages. That should never be a problem for properly written package code (since...
<dwrensha>
...the app globals will still be properly shadowed by declarations in the packages). You certainly shouldn't depend on this quirk, and in the future Meteor may check for it and throw an error if you do."