Javascript Page Builder

[Baba Flores]

Irecently applied the 12.0.92 Hotfix to my solution which was at 12.0.30. The reason for upgrading was due to an error with the Form Builder (The client side Form Builder code was getting an HTTP 500)

There were two exceptions in the upgrade log, both related to NuGet packages (Microsoft.CSharp and Micorsoft.SharePointOnline.CSOM) which I resolved via manual install of the packages per the error message.

I'm not getting javascript errors on the cmsadministration.aspx page when it tries to access any property/object on window.kentico. Apparently that object is undefined. Just checked my production site and that object is also not defined, although the Page Builder works fine - I'm guessing that cmsadministration.aspx changed with the Hotfix? Did I miss a step on the Hotfix upgrade? All I did was install the Hotfix against my CMS app, and then update the Kentico NuGet packages that my live site was referencing.

Unfortunately, after spending time going through it and the sub-links, and verifying everything, we're still seeing the issue. I have added some screenshots below but what it looks like is happening is that client side code for the Page Builder is halting when it can't resolve window.kentico or any of the objects hanging off the kentico object

I am creating a new site and trying to implement the page builder functionality which I have done several times now, but I'm hitting a roadblock. I've setup my page type, added all the necessary references in the code and the Layout page, but when I go to the page builder page in the CMS, it can't find the the pageBuilder.js and related files, like the CSS files. I've checked the site folder and all the scripts and style sheet files are where they're supposed to be.

So after a lot of trial and error, I finally think I figured out what was going on to break the Page Builder feature in my project. When I setup the site in IIS, typically the first thing I do is to remove the default applications and set the root of the IIS website to the folder where the MVC application is. Then I add the CMS application usually naming it "kentico". In previous builds of Kentico, most recently 12.0.47, this worked w/o issue. I updated this project to 12.0.75 and that's when the page builder wouldn't load. I tried several different things including making sure all the appropriate settings were in place and so on. Finally, I tried renaming the CMS application to "cms" and then the page builder started working w/o an issue. I changed it back to "kentico" and the page builder broke again.

I have a question about the CMSApplicationGuid app setting - should this value be the same between the CMS application vs. the MVC application? Also, there is a SiteGUID value in the CMS_Site table, and I'm wondering if that should be the same as the CMSApplicationGuid? I'm wondering if these ID's have gotten out of sync somehow, if that's what's causing the page builder to not work correctly?

If you delete those files in those directories, it will clear up any cached JIT compiled files and force IIS to rebuild the site when it loads again. I've had many issues with being able to debug on my local instance and removing these temp files helped greatly.

Regarding your other question about the ApplicationGUID, the Kentico application and MVC application don't care about this at all. According to documentation, it's a, "Unique identifier of the Kentico instance. Used by Kentico Windows services to identify the Kentico instance."

I did try your suggestion and then tried renaming the CMS application in IIS back to "kentico" but I got the same page builder scripts 404 errors, so I don't think the cached files were an issue. When I changed the application name back to "cms" the page builder started working again. I do think there is an issue w/ the keyword "kentico" being used as the CMS application name.

I need to include some jquery to hide and move some elements ONLY when the page is viewed live. If the jquery executes while in the pagebuilder, it basically hides things from me permanently and I can no longer edit them. My thought is if I had a javascript conditional to detect if the pagebuilder is active then I can wrap my code and only show it when live.

Like the OP, I want to execute some JS/JQuery code only when page is published and displayed on the front end.

While editing the page, if the code executes the page (editor) gets all messed up. And I end up where I can no longer edit the page properly.

Thanks for the quick reply, Justin. I tried adding my js code directly into the header.php after body tag and also putting the js file in my /js folder and enqueueing it from the functions.php using wp_enqueue_script. Both methods give me the same error results with BB not working.

Do keep in mind that coding stuff yourself can also open up security issues if you are not careful. Again, if you are devs that know where the dangers are, then I say do it from scratch. However if you are more of a marketing person, then the page builder might be a better option.

I will be building it myself and possibly the help of another dev. HTML/CSS wise is all totally fine. I will possibly be needing to include shortcodes and custom PHP to create some custom areas of the homepage.

I have no experience of working with Elementor, but from what code snippets I have seen from it, I would probably agree with the above.

That may mean if you did use the CSS from Elementor, you find yourself inserting some pretty horrendous class attributes in your HTML.

I believe that using our own code is way more secure than any website builder. The codes used by CMS for security purposes are always same, which makes it an easy target for hackers. So team code here!

@Kayami what i meant was - can Bubble generate standalone static HTML pages? I mean these are just text files? Then these HTML files are served to users (totally nothing to do with Bubble app anymore).

Their are a few solutions depending on your goal. Personally I have an AI website/funnel builder with full SEO, drag and drop, stores, automations, A/B split testing, upsell and down sell, and much more. Built partially in bubble.

Replace the landing page builder with Gutenberg builder, There are currently several standalone Gutenberg library that are wordpress agnostic. I heard that Gutenberg got integrated to Drubal too

for who dont know what Gutenberg is you can check a demo for it from here

The new Gutenberg editing experience The new Gutenberg editing experienceA new editing experience for WordPress is in the works, code name Gutenberg. Read more about it and test it!

I know we have a thread going on in Github about the Email builder - ideally we should (in my opinion) try to use the same builder across both the landing page and email builder to avoid duplication of effort and code bloat.

Gutengeek is really a best solution to replace landingpage builder with Gutenberg Blocks. THis WordPress blocks builder contains a huge range number of customizable blocks. Speacially, blocks & page library in GUtengeek let to create your content quickly by importing.

It seems they use BuilderJS as their email designer. Its licensed, but reasonable $30 for your site or an extended license for $120 (covers your clients). To me, this makes more sense as you can work directly with the builder API and not through a third party service.

Before Webflow, creating animations and interactions involved working with tedious code, or bribing one of your developer friends with pizza (or a couple hundred bucks) to do it for you. With Webflow, you can forget about wrestling with code and keep that large pepperoni pizza for yourself.

Webflow is also the first site builder that lets you access and design with your content, so you can immediately test your ideas and make optimizations with a full suite of enterprise-grade SEO tools And any changes you make to content on one page will automatically cascade across your site.

With its easy-to-understand interface, pre-made design elements, animations and interactions, and its visual content management system, Webflow is the best website creator for creating websites visually. It allows you to design and launch websites faster and more beautifully than ever before.

Start building today, for free. You only pay for custom domain web hosting or advanced features like integrations with your favorite tools, and when you upgrade, enjoy peace of mind with our 30-day money-back guarantee (check our pricing page for more information).

For some insight, our Weebly pages are pretty much 100% custom code with Caspio pages embedded in them. Nothing too complex, just some HTML/CSS/JS. We don't really use any of the elements from the actual Website Builder.

My client would rather keep using a website builder instead of self-hosting our own pages. Currently, WordPress.com is at the top of our list, but I have also seen a post on here stating Webflow worked well for Caspio Integration. I understand that Wix and GoDaddy are out of the question due to their embedded code going into iFrames.

The best third party hosting sites for Caspio are Weebly and WordPress since you can just use the common embed deploy code in deploying your DataPages on these sites even without the WordPress plugin if you will use WordPress. On the other hand, GoDaddy, Squarespace, and Wix are no longer fully supported by Caspio since they already have their own methods for accepting codes and scripts. For example, in some cases, it automatically sets embedding type as iFrame, which prevents features such as parameter passing.

Hi, @kpcollier - just curious if you wound up with Webflow or another solution. I'm about 16 months into Caspio+Webflow and pretty happy with what I've been able to accomplish... also open to sharing ideas / solutions with others with a similar configuration.

@DaveS I did not. I ended up staying with Weebly. I really only use Weebly as a place to host the pages. I build our pages with html/css/js and just post the code on a weebly page, it's been working out pretty well for us. Not entirely sure if the issues I was experiencing before with Weebly have been solved or not because we use a different technique to build the pages now.

3a8082e126