Symphony.

Thanks for fixing the small images bug, I always look for screenshots when browsing new extensions. Now, it would be nice to be allowed to upload more than one screenshot for a single extension. :-)

You can add as many as you wish into the <media> element and they will be listed. I only add one to the auto-generated XML when migrating from the existing Symphony site because the site only allowed for one. I cached the image to the symphonyextensions.com domain. But you can add as many as you wish, and host them yourself.

I hope to add support for video too, namely Vimeo and Screenr (the latter has been popular)... but the spec is quite limited in this regard so I'm not sure yet how to handle poster images for videos. We don't really have enough extensions with videos so it's not really a problem yet.

The XML (primary source) says 2012.

Doh, my bad. XML filed isn't carved into my brain yet!

Suggestion to add --recursive to the git submodule add for extensions which have submodules, so that people don't get confused when they add a submodule and it doesn't work.

--recursive

Can this safely be used even on extensions that do not have submodules themselves? So, can I add it for all extensions?

--recursive has never stopped submodules without their own submodules being added/updated for me, afaik.

Don't know if it's a bug, but I can't add a new extension via the "Choose one of your Github repositories to submit as a Symphony extension." dialog. When I click in one of my repositories, I just get an "page not font" error.

[EDIT]:

Ok, the dot-notation in my github repository path wouldn't work.

+1 for this Nick

I can't add an extension... when I go to my page (http://symphonyextensions.com/remie/) i get the following error:

loadXML(): xmlParseEntityRef: no name in Entity, line: 530

I've sent you a message via Github with a private link to help me debug this. Thanks!

This is now fixed.

Sorry if I missed it, but I couldn’t find any info on this: is there a way to only show extensions already compatible with Symphony 2.3? This would make things a whole lot easier in the near future :)

Right now there is no way to browse or display extensions that are compatible with a certain Symphony version. I'd like to implement this sometime for sure, but it won't be in the next few weeks.

@nickdunn brill! near future is good enough, cheers!

A small update on this — the site is now parsing the compatibility information and storing it in a way that should allow us to eventually browse by compatible Symphony version. There's still a lot of work left to do on the site before this becomes visible: my plan is to expose all of the content via an API (so Symphony can consume it and tell developers when extensions are updated), so once the API is built I will be making the site consume the API itself. It's not a small piece of work, but I'm making progress.

How about an additional video tutorial page for extensions developers to post their video?

There is a <media> element you can use in the meta file:

http://symphonyextensions.com/schemas/extension/1.0/#media

For example the Map Location Field page shows this image. This element supports video, although I don't think anyone is using it yet.

We have a Symphony CMS group on Vimeo, so I suggest adding your videos to the group then including these in the <media> element. If others follow suit, then I'll make the Symphny Extensions site support video embedding too.

The site now consumes its own API — wherever you see a developer or an extension on the site, 99% of the time this is being generated by HTTP requests to the XML API. I have changed the URL structure a little so that instead of mirroring Github's structure of /:username/:repo, entries are now found under /extensions/:handle and /developers/:handle. The main reason here is that you can guess an extensions URL without having to know the developer name (since extensions can change hands).

is there a way to only show extensions already compatible with Symphony 2.3?

There is now! Filtering options now include a compatibility drop down.

Awesome work Nick.

Somehow, when filter with Type: All and Compatibility: 2.3.0, the &compatible-with=2.3.0 parameter is missing in the pagination links?

the compatible-with parameter is missing in the pagination links

Fixed, thanks.

@nick brilliant! I’m happy to see so many compatible extensions already!