1 Oct
2013
1 Oct
'13
5:26 p.m.
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 5:09 PM, Guillaume "Louis-Marie" Delhumeau <
gdelhumeau(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
One
> > would be enough (with possibly different packages though).
> >
> > > + write tests
> > > + need a migration path
> > > + in the future:
> > > * Create a new wiki from a flavor:
> > > ** instead of creating a wiki from a template, you give an
extension
Thanks,
Louis-Marie
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
Hi Eddy!
2013/10/1 Eduard Moraru <enygma2002(a)gmail.com>
"flavors",
The discussion was about the membership notion. I`m not sure we should use
the term 'users' as in 'getWikiUsers' to express membership, when, in
XWiki, a 'user' of a wiki means the user that is local to that wiki.
If we have hasLocalUsersSupport() (or whatever we choose) returning 'true',
then a call to getLocalUsers() should return the list of local users.
However, this should not necessarily be the task of the wiki module, but of
some 'xwiki-platform-users-api' module that we should implement in the
future to properly implement user management in XWiki at an API level.
We`re doing bad in this sector :)
For now, I`d suggest that we have:
- getLocalUsers() (only local wiki users, to be used together with
hasLocalUsersSupport() )
- getMembers() (members of the XWikiAllGroup of the local wiki, since that
is the current way we track membership. This will include what you were
proposing, both global and local users.)
-- I`m not sure at this point about the naming, either 'members' or
'users', since we want to both have a generic solution and to have a good
separation of concerns. If we drop the separation of concerns (see above
mention of a future 'xwiki-platform-users-api' module), then we can call it
'users' in both cases (farm/workspace) and applications use only one method.
Hope this helps,
Eduard
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Guillaume
"Louis-Marie" Delhumeau <
gdelhumeau(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
enabled
> > then global users would work too, in addition to the ability to
create
Hi Vincent,
My comments below:
2013/10/1 Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net>
> Hi Guillaume,
>
> On Oct 1, 2013, at 12:21 PM, Guillaume Louis-Marie Delhumeau <
> gdelhumeau(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi devs !
> >
> > In 5.2, we have introduced Workspace Application in XE. Now, we
should
go
know
> further and merge Wiki Application with
Workspaces.
>
> = New idea =
> * Add a "hidden" field to the Wiki. For example, I would like to be
able
> to
> > create wiki:
> > ** which can not be seen by others
> > ** which does not appear in searches
> > ** e.g: workspacetemplate, or on a farm if I don't want people to that
> I host a company AND its competitor
So if i understand correctly:
* This "hidden" field would be in the wiki descriptor right?
* If the user selects "show hidden documents" (which might need to be
renamed to something more generic now) the wiki would be visible and
appear
in searches/etc, right?
Yes, but we can refine this concept. We could imagine that hidden wikis
should be visible by administrators only.
>
> > = Options =
> > * In your wiki, do you want to have the "Home" menu?
>
> See comments on http://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-9518
>
> > * In your wiki, do you want to create your own users?
>
> I would not phrase it like this. Rather: "Allow local users". If > > local users.
> >
>
> OK.
>
>
> >
> > > = XARs and template =
> > > * The home menu is enabled only if the user want it (trivial)
> >
> > How is that different from above (ie
> > http://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-9518)?
> >
> > > * The registration button should redirect to the home wiki
depending
on
the
https://github.com/xwiki/xwiki-platform/compare/feature-resource-and-wiki-m…
> the
> > configuration (trivial)
>
> Why based on configuration? Why not redirect automatically when the
user
doesn't allow local users?
It is why I meant.
>
> > * Disable XWiki.AdminRegistrationSheet, XWiki.AdminUsersSheet from > > Administration (depending on the
configuration)
>
> Ok so if the wiki doesn't allow local users then don't show admin
options
> related to users. Good.
>
> > * Create a new UI, partially based on the current WorkspaceManager
and
>
WikiManager spaces.
Any more details on this? :)
Not for now ;)
> = API =
> * Create a new API: xwiki-platform-wiki.
> * The old modules (xwiki-platform-wiki-manager and
> xwiki-platform-workspace) go into legacy, and we mark them as
deprecated.
> * The new API will use the new modules of
Vincent:
>
>
>
> > = Proposal for the API =
> > * xwiki-platform-wiki
> > ** xwiki-platform-wiki-descriptor
> > *** xwiki-platform-wiki-descriptor-api
> > **** WikiDescriptor.java
> > ***** ID
> > ***** Alias
> > ***** Hidden
> > ***** Description?
> > ***** Ability to add custom data (where all will be stored)
> > **** WikiDescriptorManager.java
> > ***** getAll()
> > ***** set()
> > ***** remove()
> > ***** getByWikiAlias()
> > ***** getByWikiId()
> > ** xwiki-platform-wiki-manager (but this name conflicts with the
> previous
> > module that we put into legacy...)
> > *** WikiManager.java
> > **** createWiki() (create an empty wiki)
> > **** deleteWiki()
> > **** copyWiki()
> > ** xwiki-platform-wiki-template
> > *** WikiTemplateManager.java
> > **** setWikiAsTemplate()
> > **** unsetWikiAsTemplate()
> > **** getWikiTemplates()
> > **** isWikiTemplate()
>
> What is the rationale for 2 modules instead of one for
> xwiki-platform-wiki-manager and xwiki-platform-wiki-template? (not
saying
> > it's bad, just curious)
> >
> > Is it because you want to see template wiki as something optional?
> >
>
> Yes, it is. Because in the future, we will have the notion of so
> > ****
setCanWikiHasLocalUsers()
> Ouch… Suggestion:
hasLocalUsers(boolean) or supportsLocalUsers(boolean).
> > **** getWikiOwner()
> > **** setWikiOwner()
> > **** getMembershipType() (join/invite only/ask to join)
> > **** setMembershipType()
> > **** getWikiUsers() (list of the local users + those who are
> > 'members' of the wiki)
> Whether the wiki accepts local users
or not should be stored in the wiki
> Yes. Someone might want to build a wiki with absolutely no notion of
users.
What about the notion of members? (from workspaces)
The difference is that we used rights to express members (global users
with
we may decide to not use template wiki anymore. I
wanted to have a
minimal
wiki-manager module and some optional ones.
is
> ** xwiki-platfrom-wiki-user (handle or not the local users)
> *** WikiUsersManager.java
> **** canWikiHasLocalUsers()
Bad name! Suggestion: hasLocalUsers() or supportsLocalUsers()
I prefer supportsLocalUsers(), because it can return true even if there actually no users in the wiki!
Another suggestion: hasLocalUsersSupport()
- respects the has* convention for boolean methods
- leaves room for a hasLocalUsers() method if we might need it
Alternatives:
- isLocalUsersEnabled()
- hasLocalUsersEnabled()
Just pick one :)
OK.
Bad suggestion, IMO, using has* to set* something :)
Try:
- setLocalUsersSupport(boolean)
- setLocalUsersEnabled(boolean)
> descriptor.
> Since you put this in a separate
module, does it mean you want to see
it
> > as some optional module?
rights on the current workspace) and the entire
UI talks about membership
and members to a workspace/wiki.
In my proposal, API WikiUsersManager#getWikiUsers() returns both local
users and global users that are members of the wiki. Do you think we should
subdivide this notion?
Hope this helps,
Eduard
>
> > ** xwiki-platform-wiki-script (for script services)
> > *** Wiki.java (only an helper)
> > **** getDescriptor()
> > **** getId()
> > **** getAlias()
> > **** addAlias()
> > **** removeAlias()
> > **** getReference()
> > **** IsTemplate()
> > **** setIsTemplate()
> > **** getOwner()
> > **** setOwner()
> > **** canHasLocalUsers()
> > **** setCanHasLocalUsers()
> > **** getMembershipType()
> > **** setMembershipType()
> > **** getUsers()
> > **** isHidden()
> > **** setHidden()
> > **** getDescription()
> > **** setDescription()
> > *** WikiManagerScript.java ("$services.wikimanager" but the name
> > conflicts with the previous module...)
> > **** getAllWikis()
> > **** getHomeWiki()
> > **** getWikiByAlias()
> > **** getWikiById()
> > **** getWikiTemplates()
> > **** createWiki()
> > **** deleteWiki()
> > **** copyWiki()
> > **** isWikiExists()
> > **** isWikiNameAvailable()
> > **** joinWiki()?
> > **** askToJoinWiki()?
>
> -1. All script services should be located in the modules they wrap.
> >
> > So if you have 4 modules, I see 4 script services (located in a
script
> > package in those modules).
> >
> > You cannot say that the modules are optional and then have a big
script
> > module that contains everything.
It'll obviously not work :)
> >
>
> > Example: I don't have xwiki-platfrom-wiki-user JAR, I shouldn't be
able
to
> call $services.<name>.canHasLocalUsers()
>
> > ** xwiki-platform-wiki-ui (pages for both the home AND the
(sub)wikis)
> > *** …
>
> Need to verify that the UI pages are not related to a given module
above.
> If so then that module should have its own
UI module to make it
optional.
To summarize:
* Either the modules above are optional and they need to be fully
optional
> (api, script service, UI)
> * Or they're not optional and why do we need to have so many modules? ID
> > >
> > > If you like this proposal, I will try to implement it as close it
is
> > > possible, but I may change some
elements to minimize dependencies.
I
will
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
> tell you.
>
> WDYT?
Sounds good in general.
Thanks
-Vincent
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs