23 Sep
2010
23 Sep
'10
6:27 p.m.
On Sep 23, 2010, at 6:14 PM, Jean-Vincent Drean wrote:
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 5:34 PM, Vincent Massol
<vincent(a)massol.net> wrote:
Then DocumentReference in the User object is not correct... ;)
Hi JV,
Sorry for being late. Some quick comments:
1) your mail wasn't really about the new users module but about a specific
question... I was expecting a general architecture discussion about a users module.
Since the thread wasn't clear enough I've pinged people individually.
2) I read
http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Design/UsersModule and when I read it I miss the
feeling that the architecture is sound and all-encompassing. It would be good to know the
extent to which this module will go and what it'll do exactly, to be sure we're
not missing things and that it's not overstepping in some other module's area.
Will it do user registration? Will it allow to add/remove/modify users? What about Groups?
There are many open questions, I've kept the proposal minimalistic on
purpose, it's only a starting point.
Now from my PoV this module should not handle user management (CRUD),
it should be a very generic proxy, for example we can imagine
(long-term) an implementation using LDAP that doesn't even create a
profile page within the wiki (thus avoiding sync problems). About groups, I think they should be handled by the
user module since
they are just sets of users.
No it's not. It's about anything that returns more than 1 page of data. It's
very generic. It allows to have a clean api that doesn't add non business parameters.
3) Would it be possible to not have the number
and offset params and instead return a ResultSet<User> object that you could query
to get the data with a cursor (same as the JDBC api basically). It makes the API better
IMO.
ResultSet sounds very RDBM oriented IMHO, I'm thinking about the users
module as a very minimalistic proxy, a name, a pointer to the user
profile (wherever it is, possibly external), possibly a method that
allows to authenticate the user in the future.
I'm very serious. Any design proposal that focus on a specific aspect without allowing
more complex use cases it completely flawed to me.
4) I don't like the "String match"
parameter. It's very restrictive. What if I want to search on the phone number of a
user? Or simply on its first name only? Also this should probably just call a more generic
search module that does search on objects.
Come on Vincent :) do you really search persons by phone number or
first name only ? I think mobile phones do a great job at helping to
find persons: first name + last name with filtering and a good default
ordering (it'd nice to order by last name). I like the approach for
its simplicity. I wonder what the others think about this. About the generic search on objects it only fits with
users stored in the wiki.
errr? We're talking about APIs here.... why would I? Simply because there's a
notion of local and global users so we need an api to return local users, global users,
all users, etc.
Whenever you talk specific without being able to do something generic you can be sure your
API is flawed and this is my main concern with the proposal: I see it very focused on a
single need and IMO it hasn't been thought to be generic. While I'm fine with this
we need to know it's going to have to be broken very soon and thus it's not really
an API and should be internal instead.
It's ok to be minimalistic but it's not ok not to prepare for all the use cases
because you'll have to break the api later on.
Thanks
-Vincent
5) "Define at which level users and groups
should be handled in the farm". Not sure what this affects. For example if I want to
get all local users, what API do I use?
Why would you ? If it is for maintenance the XWiki.XWikiUsers class
page should provide the list but if you're looking for a user profile
does it matter that it is stored in the local or the global wiki ?
> Thanks
> -Vincent
>
> On Sep 17, 2010, at 11:39 AM, Jean-Vincent Drean wrote:
>
>> Up!
>>
>> I could commit the code I have if we agree that it is going in the
>> good direction.
>> I'm thinking about the component implementation proposal in particular:
>> http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Design/UsersModule#HUsersComponent
>>
>> Thanks,
>> JV.
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Jean-Vincent Drean
>> <jean-vincent(a)drean.org> wrote:
>>> Hi Devs,
>>>
>>> I'd like to introduce a new configuration property that would define
>>> at which level users should be handled in a farm.
>>> See the proposition about the new entry in xwiki.properties, it should
>>> be self-explanatory:
>>>
>>> --------------------------------8<--------------------------------
>>> #-# [Since 2.5M1]
>>> #-# Define at which level users and groups should be handled in the
>>> farm. Available modes:
>>> #-#
>>> #-# mixed (default):
>>> #-# - user registration available in the main wiki and local wikis
>>> #-# - users from the current wiki and the main wiki will be displayed
>>> in the rights interface and user suggests
>>> #-# - user administration is present in all the wikis
>>> #-#
>>> #-# local:
>>> #-# - user registration available in the main wiki and local wikis
>>> #-# - only users from the current wiki will be displayed in the rights
>>> interface and user suggests
>>> #-# - user administration is present in all the wikis
>>> #-#
>>> #-# global:
>>> #-# - user registration available in the main wiki only, the register
>>> link in local wikis will point to the main wiki
>>> #-# - only users from the main wiki will be displayed in the rights
>>> interface and user suggests
>>> #-# - user administration is present in the main wiki only
>>> core.virtual.users=mixed
>>> -------------------------------->8--------------------------------
>>>
>>> More details are available here:
>>> http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Design/UsersModule
>>>
>>> WDYT ?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> JV.