Photo Gallery Forums

I wish it was possible to display multiple galleries on a single page.
Currently you can set the 'assets' argument in the 'gallery' tag of a page but unfortunately it does not respect subfolders of the given value:
gallery : shuffle justified assets:years/2013/trip-1
or
gallery : shuffle justified assets:years/2013/trip-2
but not
gallery : shuffle justified assets:years/2013

> In case you fear performance issues by possibly displaying several hundreds of photos, you could add an argument "maxphotos:50" or something similar.
> Clicking on a photo would open the slideshow of the containing subfolder (clicking on a photo located in trip-1 would start the slideshow of trip-1).

That would be great!

And another example:

gallery : shuffle justified assets:animals/africa,food/snacks,games/poker

So... a concatenation of directories.
For me, it's not a must have, more a would have...

Karl, any thoughts?

RBachmann wrote:Karl, any thoughts?

Sorry, I read this earlier, but somehow forgot to reply.

You are correct that this will not currently work, and also that it may have a slightly detrimental effect on performance. However, I think it is a fair request, and should be possible to achieve.

I would however tip slightly towards Martin's suggestion for integration. assets:years/2013 simply insinuates that it should look in that folder for galleries, but it cannot be guessed that you want it to look in subfolders for "all" images. I believe it would need to be an comma-separated array of folders: This feature may not be available immediately.

That's good to hear, thank you
Of course, looking into all subfolders automatically would decrease the manual work of adding a new gallery upon creation but it is still better than nothing. Take your time, you know your backlog better than we do

We could possibly do something like this, to indicate that it should look in all child folders, and not the parent folder itself:

Yes, that would be perfect!

Do you realize that you make us just wanna throw money at you?