Since we are integrating Workspaces to XE, I propose to add a new parameter
to set who has the right to create a new subwiki.
--------------
Proposal A:
--------------
We had a new item in the administration menu. This item is used to know
what level of right is needed to create a new wiki.
Examples:
* any user who have the 'edit' rights on the main wiki also has the right
to create new wikis
* any user who have the 'admin' rights on the main wiki also has the right
to create new wikis
--------------
Proposal B:
--------------
We create a new right (since we can thanks to Denis) called "SubWiki
creation right", and this right is needed to create a new subwiki. Then we
can add it to XWikiAllGroup or XWikiAdminGroup.
--------------
Proposal C:
--------------
We create a new group called 'XWikiAllowSubWikiCreationGroup', and
everybody who is on this group can create new wikis.
----
WDYT?
Thanks,
Louis-Marie
Hello,
Firstly I couldn't read everything because there is a lot of off topics so
forgive me if some of the following should not be here. If you have no time
go the last line directly.
I've been struggling with client with all those terms wich look like the
same (e.g. Main wiki, sub-wiki and then Workspace, Space) and the fact that
Workspace have "Work" into it and so is not really friendly to the client's
users. My first proposal would have been "Portal > Wiki > Space > Page" in
order to keep the basics and to find an easy way to describe the main wiki.
Then I read multiple threads and have a look to the competitors and
find-out that Home as a first term would be great and less technical than
Portal. Moreover Portal is full of connotations and do not show the
possibility to customize it.
"There is no place like Home" don't you think?
Proposal : Home > Wiki > Space > Page
Then I looked at the proposal made by Cathy on
http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/CreateWikiImprovem…
I would have picked B but I strongly dislike the fact that the product can
be two things at a time and so*
=> I vote for* *D*.
Regards,
--
Jean Coury
Hello devs,
I'd like to start working on improving the Task Manager Application found
at
http://extensions.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Extension/Task+Manager+Applicati…
This application is very old and broken, and it does not work on recent
XWiki versions.
What I want to do is to commit the old code in a separate branch, and redo
the application using AWM technologies.
Also, I'd need a JIRA component for it with the first version being 2.0.
Version 1.0 is the old code.
Regards,
Sorin B.
Hi,
I'd like to add:
public interface ModelConfiguration
{
…
Syntax getDefaultSyntax();
}
And the configuration key would be:
model.defaultSyntax=xwiki/2.1
This also means deprecating CoreConfiguration.getDefaultDocumentSyntax() in oldcore
The goal is to have a clean way for getting the default syntax for documents for example without having to use oldcore.
I need this to fix http://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-9074 for example.
WDYT?
Thanks
-Vincent
Hi devs,
I sent a VOTE email not long ago entitled "[VOTE] Integrate Workspaces by default in XWiki's default XAR".
So far I didn't get much responses (Vincent +1, Denis +1, Sergiu -0) and the thread was hijacked by Caty, transforming it as a proposal of various implementations while the goal of the mail was just to get an agreement about integration of the workspaces feature in XE in 5.2.
Edy commented in https://github.com/xwiki/xwiki-enterprise/pull/38 that he wasn't sure that everyone understood that the idea was to integrate all the subwiki usecases in 5.2 (i.e. myxwiki.org and xwiki.org uses cases, aka farm mode and workspaces mode).
Thus with this email I'd like to ensure that we agree to integrate both use cases.
IMO integrating only one is just asking for trouble and we need to take into account both use cases to make sure we have something consistent.
Is anyone disagreeing?
We need an answer on this for Guillaume to progress on https://github.com/xwiki/xwiki-enterprise/pull/38
Thanks
-Vincent
Hi devs,
Just a note to indicate that just deprecated
XWikiDocument#deleteAttachment methods in favor of the combination of
the new method XWikiDocument#removeAttachment and XWiki#saveDocument.
This make attachment deletion follow the same behavior as xobject and
among other things allow doing all sort of modifications to a
XWikiDocument without touching the database until we decide to apply
them by saving the document.
Thanks,
--
Thomas Mortagne
Dear community,
I developed a custom action called 'exporttandem', it works well and
performs (Java component) a new kind of format export. But this action is
allowed by registered users only. Is there any way to open to the rest of
users, including unregistered users?
Thanks,
Jordi Duran
--
View this message in context: http://xwiki.475771.n2.nabble.com/custom-struts-action-rights-tp7586458.html
Sent from the XWiki- Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Hi,
To promote contribution and encourage code brevity, I would like to remove
the rule that we fail the build over a missing javadoc on a non-public
field.
It's important to understand, this is *not* about encouraging developers
to skimp on documentation!
There are obvious cases such as 'logger' where the role of the field is
blatantly clear and forced documentation is at best useless and at worst
counterproductive because it creates an information overload for the code
reader and hides the comments which the author really wanted to be seen.
+1 for dropping this rule
Thanks,
Caleb