22 Mar
2012
22 Mar
'12
5:13 p.m.
On 03/21/2012 09:07 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
On 02/13/2012 11:27 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
That would be 2 extra joins (compared to selecting just documents) so I
would say yes, the impact is non-negligible, even with proper indexes.
Hi devs,
I've been brainstorming with Jean-Vincent about how to implement
hiding technical content for 4.0. Here's what we would like to do:
Note: This is related to the proposal I made earlier:
http://markmail.org/thread/jupn22fdk4nnqj6p
In summary:
* Add a RoleVisibilityClass XObject to documents and spaces (in
WebPreferences for Spaces) which is a list of Roles (simple or
advanced users for now) deciding which role should be allowed to view
a given document in result sets.
Should we use different objects for different levels of rights? For
example, we have XWikiRights and XWikiGlobalRights to distinguish
between rights on the WebPreferences document itself and rights on the
whole space. If we always assume that a RoleVisibilityClass object on
a WebPreferences document always refers to the space visibility, then
we will have to rely on the blacklist to hide all WebPreferences
documents. Is that something we want to hardcode?
An alternative that doesn't require using two classes is to add a
"scope" property to the class, to distinguish between document, space
and wiki settings.
* Either modify XWikiHibernateStore or introduce
a new
FilteredHibernateStore store which would delegate to
XWikiHibernateStore (same mechanism as the cache store) to add the
JOIN to check the visibility and only return visible documents for
the current user
I'd rather use a new store interface, since I've changed the default
store to exclude the "hidden" documents from results, and this is
making it hard to ignore the hidden setting even from internal code.
* Remove the notion of hidden documents and have
a migrator to remove
the column in xwikidocs
+1.
* Modify the Lucene plugin to add a VISIBILITY
field and return
filtered results based on the visibility and the current user role
+1.
* Note1: After much brainstorming we think that
the notion of
"application" could be implemented either with an Application XObject
that tie the document to an application or with an Application
Descriptor.
* Note2: We'll need to decide at some point if we want more roles
than just "simple user" and "advanced user" and if we need
"developer" and "admin" too.
+1 for more roles in the future.
> * Notes1 and 2 are currently out of scope for this proposal
>
> However we're wondering how much performance we will loose with this
> implementation using XObjects (due to the extra JOIN).
With the proper indexes in place, and if we only use this check when
running queries from the wiki, it shouldn't have a big impact.
Do you think it's acceptable?
Could it be improved with custom mapping? (I think not)
Not that much, custom mapping helps only when there are objects with
lots of properties in them.
Should we implement this without XObjects and
instead modify
XWikiDocuments and add a new column in xwikidocs?
This would be better for performance (less joins).
Thanks
-Vincent
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs