Warehoused images?

Is it possible to use warehoused images in Foundry for example with the banner, slider and card stacks - if not directly, could you use 3rd party image stacks that support warehousing inside these?

none of the foundry stacks support warehouse images.

This should not be a problem with non-foundry stacks. I just tested via Markdown and there was no issue.

Thanks for the replies. Would this be possible in the future as I’m quite sold on it’s advantages and it would be great to have in the Foundry stacks as they seem to offer things (content overlay etc.) that are otherwise quite hard to achieve.

Razorbill, if you have a minute, could you specify what the advantages are to warehousing images? I’m not a designer/developer, so a little help would be great.

I see 5 options with many stacks and don’t know which is best: (1) drag and drop the image into the space provided in the Inspector (apparently the ONLY option in Foundry); (2) drag and drop the image in Resources and then link to it (apparently not an option in Foundry); (3) drag & drop an image into the stack itself in Edit mode (apparently not an option in Foundry); and (4) warehousing an image on your server and linking to it (apparently not an option in Foundry); and (5) warehousing an image somewhere else (e.g., Amazon) and linking to it (apparently not an option in Foundry). Anyone: Which of these 5 options would provide the fastest load performance on Google page speed test?

1 Like

@razorbill: I don’t currently have plans to introduce “warehoused” images. This is in an effort to keep things simple, and easy to use, and not bloat the code within the individual stacks. Keeping that balance of simplicity and power in Foundry is important to me.


If you listen to Dan and Ben’s Rapidweaver podcast they talk specifically about this.(I need to see which podcast episode ,it was EPISODE 31 They talk about Retina images but if I recall they talk about warehousing images) But they suggest drag and drop just like Foundry has for images. The key is to optimize the images via some sort of compression tool, they link to a couple. Name the image with a unique name and this should be sufficient for speed and SEO.


I think most here do completely disregard that many, many (maybe most?) of us are doing client work / client sites with RapidWeaver. And clients want to edit their sites on their own (regarding images and texts). For this task you can use different solutions like Total CMS, Easy CMS, Pulse, Armadillo or s.th. similar. While it’s no problem for texts (you can make any text inside Foundry be editable with Total/Easy CMS for example) there’s a big problem regarding the images. The client can’t simply drag and drop pictures into the resources area or into dropzones. They are - generally said - exchanging images on the FTP-server via an admin interface provided by these CMS-systems. So by not offering warehousing for images you’re making it impossible for all these CMS systems to edit the images remotely.
Ok, you could use other stacks inside Foundry which support warehousing or even direct integration with one of these CMS systems. But it would be nicer if you could simply stay with the stacks which Foundry offers instead of having to mangle with other 3rd party stacks inside your Foundry project. To cut a long story short…: adding warehousing to the image stacks in Foundry would be a nice and welcome addition – at least in my humble opinion… :wink:
What do you think…?


I was tempted by Foundry at the announcement stage. I might never even use it for more than playing around and experimentation but I’m a bit of a stacksaholic.

Having just listened to the latest RW podcast, which seemed very Foundry positive, I thought I’d add it to my stacks collection. Ironically my path to purchase through the elixir site brought me here first.

Seeing this post has stopped me in my tracks. Easy warehousing of images integration is an absolute essential feature for me. My 600MB business site doesn’t contain a single image, everything is referenced. My site doesn’t need the extra baggage from images and warehousing has way too many advantages for me to even contemplate adding images to a project.

If I’m going to purchase a package like Foundry I don’t want to have to use 3rd party stacks within it. I like the idea of a purist approach. I’ve also come across incompatibilities recently using non-Foundation stacks in my Foundation project so there’s another good reason.

@elixirgraphics think seriously about integrating a simple warehouse image checkbox in the image stacks. You are limiting your user base otherwise.

I remember another developer dismissing warehousing (DooBox rings a bell though I might be mistaken) and there was substantial disagreement to his argument for doing so.


I think I may be insensitive to the experiences of developers at times. My guess is some developers have experienced too many problems (or anticipate too many problems) if they provide the option to warehouse. And in many ways I have to trust their judgement on this.

… perhaps a “third way” would be to create an add-on pack (even if free) that provided warehousing-only equivalents to relevant image stacks in Foundry. Then the disclaimer to downloading and using the warehoused stacks would be that support for how to warehouse, etc. would be minimal or non-existent. That would get around the problem of lots of extra support time (which I can imagine happens) yet providing the warehousing prefs of more veteran users.

Adam wants this to be a dead simple drag and drop solution for Rapidweaver. Warehouse images just does not fit that model at this time. For very large projects I suppose warehouse images make sense but if you optimize the images then you should be good to go using Foundry.

Just wondering @Steve_J how do you know this? Do you work for @elixirgraphics? This would be a deal breaker for me and I REALLY wanted to purchase Foundry, it looks so pretty!!

I think I can adapt, especially using 3rd party stacks, but RW drag/drop currently does not allow SVGs. That is a huge problem/limitation.

I did check and Foundry plays very nicely with Will Woodgate’s ProGallery. Yeah!

See this is my big concern as well, and I do not see Realmac changing that anytime soon… Also, just for my own personal way I make sites, I prefer warehousing over drag and drop…

I was a beta tester for awhile. I even brought up this same topic. The concept of Foundry is drag and drop with no coding necessary with a vey low learning curve. I used foundation for awhile and I found Foundry to be easy and powerful at the same time. For a 1.0 product it is very mature.

I am sure it is, but as I stated, it is a deal breaker for me. Just the way I weave…

How though is Warehousing using code??? Also, in the videos Adam says you do not need code but can use it, so if you call warehousing code, why can I not use that??

@lastronger There is zero problem using code to insert images. I’ve tested using Markdown and all works fine.

1 Like

That’s what makes RW so great right now. So many options available to us. I remember when if you wanted something cool or cutting edge you had to copy a theme you like and modify it to fit what you want. Now anything is almost possible with RW and the devs are making cool stuff. The only plugin I use any more is Stacks.

Not saying that, just trying to get explanations why it sounds one way in a video and not in another. I understand that Adam does not want to include it, it is just sad because as I stated, it is so pretty…

Oops, I have to amend my last post. I always use the HTML for images (I just put inside a markdown stack). I’m using this generic code:

<img src="fullURLhere" alt="text wording" width="100%" />

So the key with Foundry likely is to use the basic coding version combined with the Container stack (this “contains” the width). The Container stack is almost exactly the same as Will’s Useful Stack (which I use all the time in a regular theme)