xwiki-users June 2010

xwiki-users@xwiki.org

73 participants
136 discussions

Re: [xwiki-users] [xwiki-devs] [Proposal] Rights Management UI

by Ecaterina Valica

A small variation for Version 3 http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights3AProposal Changes: - improved the display of inheritance of rights within a role description; - emphasize the display of "Inherited"|"Allow"|"Deny" by using color and icon representation. For Rights version 4 I'll remove the concept of Role. Thanks, Caty On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 15:30, Ecaterina Valica <valicac(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 21:04, Denis Gervalle <dgl(a)softec.lu> wrote: > >> On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 16:33, Ecaterina Valica <valicac(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> > Hi Denis, >> > >> > On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 16:52, Denis Gervalle <dgl(a)softec.lu> wrote: >> > >> > > On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 12:39, Ecaterina Valica <valicac(a)gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > > >> > > > On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 18:29, Denis Gervalle <dgl(a)softec.lu> >> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 17:08, Guillaume Lerouge < >> > guillaume(a)xwiki.com >> > > > > >wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > > Hi, >> > > > > > >> > > > > > On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 11:03, Ecaterina Valica < >> valicac(a)gmail.com >> > > >> > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > Hi, >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > I've reviewed some of your feedback and added them to Rights >> > > > Management >> > > > > > UI >> > > > > > > Proposal *VERSION 3*: >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > *Partial Prototype* >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > - Wiki Level: >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights3Wiki >> > > > > > > - Space Level: >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights3Space >> > > > > > > - Page Level: >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights3Page >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > *Desired Interaction* >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > - >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >> > >> http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights3Proposal >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Thanks, >> > > > > > > Caty >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > I like the separation between rights definition and rights >> > > affectation. >> > > > > > Only >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > Nice indeed, but I do not understand how it could fits with >> current >> > > > > implementation. >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > downside -> inherited rights are displayed less clearly than >> what >> > > they >> > > > > were >> > > > > > in version 2. >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > and I do not see any inherited information anymore. >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > For example, in Space Level >> > > > http://localhost:8084/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights3Space >> > > > the text in yellow represents the inherited users and inherited >> roles >> > > from >> > > > upper level. >> > > > >> > > > The text in black (evalica with Reviewer and the Reviewer >> definition) >> > is >> > > > specified only for this level. >> > > > >> > > > After the save the added "Reviewer" right is gonna look like this: >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> http://localhost:8084/xwiki/bin/download/Improvements/Rights3Proposal/addU6… >> > > >> > > >> > > Thanks for these precision, I have better understand your idea. >> > (Personally >> > > I have some difficulties with colors (partially color blind), so >> > > information >> > > based on colors is not always easy for me.) >> > > >> > >> > So you're a great test candidate :). I also received a mail from Roman >> (he >> > wanted icons to represent rights), so what I can do for you is to try a >> > version with color + little icon to represent >> "Inherited"|"Allow"|"Deny". I >> > will think about it. >> > >> >> I think that could be nice to have more visual than color information >> for inheritance. The way it was in proposal 2 was fine, since this was >> more >> intensity than color. >> And I will be pleased to be your candidate. Be careful that using icons >> for >> representing specific rights could add complexity when (later) components >> add new rights dynamically. >> >> >> > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > > > So, proposal 3 seems less interesting than proposal 2. I do not >> see >> > > what >> > > > it >> > > > > solves based on previous comments either. >> > > > > Caty, could you explain further your goals with this proposal ? >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > I tried in proposal 3 to make it more easy to use. People told me >> that >> > > they >> > > > didn't understood the "Containing Spaces/Pages" so I've removed it. >> > > > This proposal gives the users the possibility to create Roles that >> can >> > > have >> > > > semantically value to them and thus making the rights more easy to >> use. >> > > > >> > > > This proposal accommodates the case: "Not sure it's scalable. In the >> > > future >> > > > applications/components will be able to register new rights". >> > > > Having the rights displayed vertically and only on Add, makes the UI >> > more >> > > > scalable, and in the code we could add as many rights as we would >> want. >> > > > Also >> > > > the spaces is now more economical having just "Allow"/"Deny" >> columns. >> > > > >> > > >> > > I completely agree that proposal 3 is clearer. The problem is that >> > > your samples and the structure of this proposal are really far from >> > current >> > > implementation. >> > > Proposal 2 were fitting better but the samples where also not >> realistic >> > and >> > > remarks from Thomas about global wiki users should also be integrated. >> > > >> > >> > About Thomas feedback, don't you like >> > >> > >> http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights3Proposal#HN… >> > ? >> > >> > >> > > >> > > So, I am puzzle by your goals here. Aren't we going too fast ? >> > > Since there is very poor documentation about the way XWiki rights >> works >> > (I >> > > would be happy to improve that, but it will require some time), I have >> > the >> > > impression that there is a important misunderstanding of how >> inheritance >> > is >> > > effectively applied. So the design of a proper UI is not easy. I have >> > also >> > > read the draft of Sergiu that aims to improve the documentation, but >> > either >> > > I have not understand it or it does not describe current behavior. >> > > >> > > So the question is for me, are we designing this UI to think about >> future >> > > possibilities or to replace the current UI ? >> > > >> > >> > >> > My purpose is "to make rights easy to use at last". IMO this means do >> > whatever it takes to make them "easy to use" :) I try to base my >> proposal >> > on >> > existing code, but I never disregard new functionalities that I can add >> if >> > this means the UI and experience is gonna be improved. >> > >> > The only thing Rights version 3 is adding is the "Role" part, which is >> some >> > kind of groups for rights. If the solution given is gonna be convincing >> > enough to be use in the rights part (not yet .... but maybe some version >> of >> > it) I'm sure there will be someone that is gonna want to implement it. >> > Until >> > then I will continue to prototype and find out how we can add all that >> > functionality in one place. >> > >> >> Well, this precisely the grouping of right that is a big change. >> Currently, >> right are inherit individually, not as a group. >> Moreover, the inheritance is a little bit particular, since allowing a >> given >> right at lower level, will deny that same right for anybody else even if >> this right is allowed at a higher level. >> Said another way, once an allowance for a given right has been found and >> you >> are not part of it, you are denied. >> Of course, there is an exception to this rules regarding global admin >> rights, these ones are evaluated before and gets priority. >> >> I would agree if you find this to be not the correct way of evaluating >> right, but this is the way it works since the beginning. There is also an >> option to evaluate rights based on a hierarchy of spaces, but this one is >> usually disabled. It will probably be revived when such hierarchy of space >> are bring back using the new reference model. >> >> So, I am convinced that current right management is poor, but changing it >> will require important changes, and time. >> >> Hope you get a better idea of my concerns. For detailled information on >> how >> rights are processed, you may want to have a look at >> http://dev.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Drafts/XWikiRightServiceReversed. >> This >> is really bare documentation of the code, but it tells the truths. >> > > Denis, thanks for the extra info > Caty > > >> >> Denis >> >> >> > >> > And yes... I need to focus more on the inheritance again. >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Caty >> > >> > >> > > Denis >> > > >> > > >> > > > Thanks, >> > > > Caty >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > Denis >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Also, a drop-down might be better than an autosuggest when >> > selecting >> > > > > which >> > > > > > right should be added to a role. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Guillaume >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ >> > > > > > > devs mailing list >> > > > > > > devs(a)xwiki.org >> > > > > > > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > -- >> > > > > > Guillaume Lerouge >> > > > > > Product Manager - XWiki SAS >> > > > > > Skype: wikibc >> > > > > > Twitter: glerouge >> > > > > > http://guillaumelerouge.com/ >> > > > > > _______________________________________________ >> > > > > > devs mailing list >> > > > > > devs(a)xwiki.org >> > > > > > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > -- >> > > > > Denis Gervalle >> > > > > SOFTEC sa - CEO >> > > > > eGuilde sarl - CTO >> > > > > _______________________________________________ >> > > > > users mailing list >> > > > > users(a)xwiki.org >> > > > > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users >> > > > > >> > > > _______________________________________________ >> > > > users mailing list >> > > > users(a)xwiki.org >> > > > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > -- >> > > Denis Gervalle >> > > SOFTEC sa - CEO >> > > eGuilde sarl - CTO >> > > _______________________________________________ >> > > 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 >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Denis Gervalle >> SOFTEC sa - CEO >> eGuilde sarl - CTO >> _______________________________________________ >> devs mailing list >> devs(a)xwiki.org >> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs >> > >

14 years, 3 months

Re: [xwiki-users] [xwiki-devs] [Proposal] Rights Management UI

by Ecaterina Valica

Hi Denis, I want to thank you again for all the help you are giving :P Please take a look at a proposal for "V3 and my 3)" version with elements from Rights2 :) http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights43Proposal and in "action" http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights43Space The prototype is not reflecting the "desired" interaction: both inherited info and rights change appear on hover (right icon and arrow), instead of hover | click. That "v" needs to be an arrow like the one we use in the action menus. On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 19:06, Denis Gervalle <dgl(a)softec.lu> wrote: > Caty, > > Really nice and interesting post, I will try to reach that level... but > without visual :\ > > I really think that using the collapsed view for editing would helps basic > users to have a simplified and more easy interface to understand. We may > even imagine that only "advanced user" (those marked so in their profile), > has access to the expanded view. > > I think that the collapsed view missed an additional icon that summarize > the > rights that are not shown. This one would only be shown if there is any > non-defaulted additional right in action. This is a signal that extended > rights are in use (See it like the grey box of Windows when special rights > are setup, which is inviting to go into advanced view to know more). This > one would be obviously not editable, and should probably work like the ... > or replace it ? In place of the ... . Concerning the ..., I am not sure, > but > I would also prefer to see a textual link "advanced" in small font, and > only > visible when row is hovered. > > http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights43Proposal#H… > Order of right are not significant, so I would prefer that in all view, > these where in the same order, with the basic right first (V/C/E/D/A/P) and > the additional right in their order of registration (hope that it will stay > constant... or we will have to find a way to keep them ordered). > The "right" part of each icon should be grayed if the right is inherited > and > not grayed if the right is set locally, this improve the information > provided in V3. http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights43Proposal#H… The problem with this icons (taken from Silk) is that there is little difference for View, Comment, Admin icons between the two states (inherited, locally set) - but this is something we can easily improve (by changing the icons and looking for some more contrast). Example: This is how they look when all rights are set locally (full color) http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Improvements/Rights43Propos… > I also think that the +/- (which is never grayed) could be > nearer to the right icon. Maybe you could use a green V and a read "stop" > in > place of +/- ? > The other mockup versions (like http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights41Space) used v/x for the allow/deny representation, and yes, I agree that they are more suited than +/-. The problem is that we are using in XWiki, X to represent delete, so having two xX was too much, that's why I introduced +/-. Maybe we can find another solution. > > Regarding the collapsed view, I see three possibilities to investigate for > allowing edition while improving readability (note that readability has the > same issue in expanded view, but it seems to be less annoying) : > > 1) use V3, but when hovering a row, use V2 on that row and allow drag/drop > (keeping V2 until drop even is hover is temporary lost). Not sure this will > be nice in practice ? see 2) > > 2) use a presentation in 4 columns, for both collapsed and expanded view, > the first column behing a read-only summary like V3, and the 3 column being > an ordered V1. However, dragging from summary would be allowed. The 3 > detailed column could be shown only when a drag is started from summary, or > with a global horizontal expansion button... Basic user would have access > to > this, but not necessarily to vertical row expansion. Not sure this is not > an > increase in complexity ? so, see 3) > > 3) use V3, and a similar interface to what we have in current right > management interface. Since saved are postponed (not like we have > currently), using this one may be both practical and could helps the > transition for existing user as well. With all the belts and whistle added > to clearly state changes and inheritance, this will be similar but really > better than what we have. > > If we go for V3 and my 3) proposal, I also wonder if the current table > header is well done. I do not like it when nothing is expanded since it is > confusing, too large, and not significant. It will be even more unexpected > if you follow me on the "advance user" case, when a basic user look at it. > Maybe you could try a changing header, only expanding when there is > expanded > row, or, you could move the expanded header in each expanded row, keeping a > simplified header at the top. > > WDYT ? > > Denis > > Other problem that this proposal has is the representation of "advanced rights". If we don't like the textual description and we want to add icons, IMO we have two solutions: A) use the same abstract icon, but with different color, ex. a key or lock icon with color representation ("blue" for "programming", "green" for "captchaComment", etc) - the problem here is for the people that have some kind color blindness and will not distinguish between some color tones (this is the case when we gonna have lots of "advanced" | non default rights) B) use the same abstract icon and with an order index (like numbers 1, 2, etc or characters A, B, etc) These representations are based on the fact that "advanced rights" will be added by other developers and the icon will not be custom made for a specif right. Another thing we need to consider for this proposal is how the filtering is gonna be made. > > On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 12:54, Ecaterina Valica <valicac(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 10:03, Denis Gervalle <dgl(a)softec.lu> wrote: > > > > > Caty, > > > > > > I probably have an issue with my browser (Chrome/Mac) but I cannot see > > the > > > icons :( > > > > > > > Fixed: thanks. > > > > Made some screenshots with how it suppose to look like: > > - Wiki: > > > > > http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Improvements/Rights4Proposa… > > - Space: > > > > > http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Improvements/Rights4Proposa… > > > > > > > Anyway this seem to me nice, but I am not sure you should prevent > > changing > > > rights in summary mode. I think that summary mode should allow simple > > right > > > management, and for 'casual' or less knowledgeable users, this should > be > > > the > > > only mode used. This is not only a summary, but also a simplified > > > interface. > > > > > > WDYT ? > > > > > > > I had your vision (changing rights in summary mode) in mind when I > started > > prototyping. Let me show you some versions: > > > > V1_space) First version took the exact order from the extended view > (first > > Allow, second Deny rights) > > > > > http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Improvements/Rights4Proposa… > > > > + this version lets the user drag its right to the appropriate column > > +- has the same representation as the extended version > > --- there is no scanability: if I want to see the status of "delete" > right > > for different groups/users I have to search for them (making me dizzy :P > ) > > + there is no gapping space between rights > > > > V2_space) Tried to fix the dizziness by providing same order/position for > > rights > > > > > http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Improvements/Rights4Proposa… > > +- this version lets the user drag its right to the appropriate column, > > but the user has not control over the position he choose to drop the > > target: > > the right will appear on the column it's suppose to be > > +- doesn't have the same representation as the extended version > > (allowed/denied order broke, determined order present) > > + scanability: it's easy to scan for the searched column/position > > - gap space between rights: ex. evalica-DenyDelete: some users might > not > > like that gap and may not understand why is there (is it a bug?) > > > > See also: > > V2_wiki) > > > > > http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Improvements/Rights4Proposa… > > V2_wiki_expanded) > > > > > http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Improvements/Rights4Proposa… > > > > As you see in V2) has the same functionality as the expanded version. > > The main benefit is that is occupying less space, but we still need the > > expanded view for the Inherited/detailed information for each right. > > > > The down side of version 2 > > > > > http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Improvements/Rights4Proposa… > > is that if I want to *summarize *a global state for a given right (ex see > > for what users 'delete' is allowed/denied) at a global level, not at a > > group/user level, the same dizziness effect appears (I have to search for > > 'delete' right in three columns, for all the users) > > > > V3) is the current proposal, it compresses the 3 column spread > information > > in one view. > > > > > http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Improvements/Rights4Proposa… > > - this version doesn't lets the user drag its right to the appropriate > > column > > +- doesn't have the same representation as the extended version > > + scanability: it's easy to scan for the searched column/position at a > * > > global* level > > + there is no gapping space between rights > > > > V3_wiki) > > > > > http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Improvements/Rights4Proposa… > > is equivalent to > > V2_wiki) > > > > > http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Improvements/Rights4Proposa… > > > > I prefer V3) over V2): > > + Summary does what is suppose to: give a global summary of existing > > rights, without being concerned of the type of the right (inherited, > > locally > > allowed, locally denied) > > + Good Readability > > +/- Doesn't allow rights to be dragged around. I prefer changing rights > in > > expanded mode because there you also have more information, like source > of > > the inheritance + 3 columns. > > > > Being compact it's easier to understand the "local source of inheritance" > > for a given right. For example, allowing "view" right for 'evalica' will > > deny it for 'unregistered users' and 'registered users'. Being on the > same > > column is easier to look for the change and see it in action (being > > highlighted). > > > > > http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/download/Improvements/Rights4Proposa… > > > > Please tell me what you think about this rationale. It would be great if > > you > > have ideas about how to make the summary being draggable, but also > keeping > > scanability and less gaps. > > > > Thanks, > > Caty > > > > > > > Denis > > > > > > On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 16:54, Ecaterina Valica <valicac(a)gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 17:53, Ecaterina Valica <valicac(a)gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > Summary Icons for standard rights: > > > > > > > > > > *Space Level:* > > > > > > > http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights42Space > > > > > *Wiki Level*: > > > > > > > > > http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights4Proposal > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry: link for Wiki is > > > > > http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights42Wiki > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bug: > > > > > - when clicking on "more" next to the summary, all columns should > > > expand, > > > > > not just one column at a time. > > > > > > > > > > Missing: > > > > > - expand/collapse all + pagination, etc > > > > > > > > > > Remarks: > > > > > - Summary view is good for quick scanning of the rights. Rights > > > > management > > > > > (changing) and inheritance explanations are available in expanded > > view. > > > > > - Icons presented just for: view, comment, edit, delete, admin, > > > register, > > > > > programming. Extended rights|Expand mode are represented by "..." > > > (more) > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Caty > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 11:26, Denis Gervalle <dgl(a)softec.lu> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 09:57, Ecaterina Valica < > valicac(a)gmail.com> > > > > >> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> > Hi, > > > > >> > > > > > >> > I want to talk a bit about: > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > The inheritance is a little bit particular, since allowing a > > given > > > > >> right > > > > >> > at > > > > >> > > lower level, will deny that same right for anybody else even > if > > > this > > > > >> > right > > > > >> > > is allowed at a higher level. > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > I want to know how hard this would be to be changed. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> Changing this is not hard, but it will increase complexity since > we > > > will > > > > >> need a backward compatibility mode for existing wikis. > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > Another question is why this has been done in the first place? > Can > > > > >> someone > > > > >> > give a valid use case when this is more productive than other > > ways. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> I really do not know, and I am curious as well. > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > It is very confusing and users need to do additional steps in > > order > > > to > > > > >> give > > > > >> > the rights they want. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> I completely agree, this is poor. > > > > >> > > > > >> I think is a problem of how the Groups are perceived. Only as a > > rights > > > > >> > mechanism or as a semantically grouping. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> We should not decide this, since groups maybe synchronized from > > > external > > > > >> system (ie LDAP), imposing groups for rights is not correct. By > the > > > way, > > > > >> groups may contains groups, but I am almost sure that this will > work > > > > >> properly in practice. > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > If we use groups just to give rights than the current > > implementation > > > > is > > > > >> > usable. But if you have groups, like Tech team, Design team, > > > > Marketing, > > > > >> > Happy team ... etc in order to classify our users in other ways > > > beside > > > > >> > rights management, giving permission to a user is breaking all > the > > > > >> > inheritance from upper levels. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Example: > > > > >> > Group A(Managers) has View (default allowed) at wiki level - > this > > > > means > > > > >> > that > > > > >> > they should be allowed to view all the pages in the wiki. > > > > >> > Group B(Tech Team) has View (explicitly denied) at spaceX level > - > > > this > > > > >> > means > > > > >> > they shouldn't be allowed to view this space. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > But I have a person (the managerX) in Group B that is supposed > to > > > see > > > > >> the > > > > >> > info in spaceX level. So the first logical move would be to give > > him > > > > >> allow > > > > >> > at space level (having in mind that space rights are stronger > that > > > > wiki > > > > >> > rights and the view right has been overriden). But, if I give > > > managerX > > > > >> view > > > > >> > right, all the other groups (incluing Managers) will be denied > for > > > > >> spaceX > > > > >> > level. This means I need to know that and "repair" again all the > > > > rights > > > > >> I > > > > >> > ALREADY set at the higher level. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > This behavior is not logical for me. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> It is not logical for me and I imagine many others ! > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > A solution would be to take out managerX form Group B and leave > it > > > > just > > > > >> in > > > > >> > Managers group. Yes, this way my problem is solved, but this > means > > > > >> Groups > > > > >> > are only used for Rights purposes. Group B (Tech Team) is no > > longer > > > > >> > semantically compact and I can't further give this group compact > > > > tasks, > > > > >> > etc. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Please tell if is a way to change this behavior and please have > in > > > > mind > > > > >> > XWiki 3.0, where Groups are going beyond rights management and > > they > > > > >> should > > > > >> > be seen as collaboration mechanisms (which need to be > semantical). > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> IMO, XWiki 3.0 should have a complete rework of the right service > > > > >> implementation, and breaks with the past. > > > > >> Since this will cause many migration issue, I am not in favor of > > > > >> progressive > > > > >> changes, and I would prefer to see a big single change that fix > > this, > > > > and > > > > >> also the current discussion on script rights. > > > > >> > > > > >> Denis > > > > >> > > > > >> Rights should be inherited from upper level and should affect only > > the > > > > >> > user/group where a change is made, not make some complicated > > > > >> implications > > > > >> > at > > > > >> > other levels and groups. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Thanks, > > > > >> > Caty > > > > >> > > > > > >> > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 16:48, Ecaterina Valica < > > valicac(a)gmail.com> > > > > >> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Hi, > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > Did: > > > > >> > > - source of inheritance is per rights; > > > > >> > > - local source of inheritance: if the a right is allowed to > > anyone > > > > >> else > > > > >> > at > > > > >> > > the same level, it is implicitly disallowed for any others; > > > > >> > > - inheritance from upper levels / groups. > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > Please see if I put the rights correctly: > > > > >> > > Wiki Level: > > > > >> > > > > > > > http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights41Wiki > > > > >> > > Space Level: > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights41Space > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > Obs. Summary view + icons not done yet. > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > Thanks, > > > > >> > > Caty > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 11:31, Denis Gervalle <dgl(a)softec.lu> > > > > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > >> Hi Caty, > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> This one is simpler and more easy to understand than proposal > 2 > > > > >> (which I > > > > >> > >> liked but were complex). It is your best try IMO. I agree > with > > > Caty > > > > >> that > > > > >> > >> using icons too reduce the place taken will not allow easy > > > > >> extensions. > > > > >> > But > > > > >> > >> Alex proposal would help to have a summary view, which is > nice > > to > > > > >> have > > > > >> > >> too. > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> Maybe we could do both in fact. Propose a summary view (by > > > > default), > > > > >> > which > > > > >> > >> fit a single line per user, this view would present the > common > > > > rights > > > > >> > >> (V/C/E/D/A/(R/P)) using icons, and a last icon would be used > to > > > > >> mention > > > > >> > >> there is more special rights either inherited, allowed or > > denied. > > > > So > > > > >> we > > > > >> > >> only > > > > >> > >> need to use (and think about) a short icon representation for > > > > common > > > > >> > >> rights, > > > > >> > >> and extended rights will be represented by a single special > > > > >> > >> representation. > > > > >> > >> Rows could be expanded individually or globally so if you > want > > a > > > > more > > > > >> > >> detailled information, you may reach it either for a single > > user > > > or > > > > >> all > > > > >> > at > > > > >> > >> once. Changing common rights would be allowed in collapsed > mode > > > and > > > > >> > >> expanded > > > > >> > >> mode, but changing special rights would only be allowed in > > > expanded > > > > >> > view. > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> If you want to keep the width even smaller, you may also > > colspan > > > > the > > > > >> > >> user/group column over the others, using 2 rows per user, but > I > > > am > > > > >> not > > > > >> > >> sure > > > > >> > >> it will be nice. (Could this be only when horizontal space is > > > short > > > > >> ?) > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> I really like this one because it is simple to learn without > > > > >> > documentation > > > > >> > >> and could also help learning how rights works, but there is > > again > > > > >> > >> some inconstancies with the current implementation. Compare > to > > > > >> proposal > > > > >> > 3, > > > > >> > >> these inconsistencies may be nicely fixed and really helps > > > > >> understanding > > > > >> > >> why > > > > >> > >> the right is disallowed at any time. You can do it like this: > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> - the inheritance pop-up information should be at the right > > > level > > > > in > > > > >> > >> the inheritance columns. The rights are inherited and check > > > > >> > individually, > > > > >> > >> so > > > > >> > >> the precise source of inheritance is per rights, not only per > > > user > > > > or > > > > >> > >> group > > > > >> > >> - there is a local source of inheritance: if the a right is > > > > allowed > > > > >> to > > > > >> > >> anyone else at the same level, it is implicitly disallowed > for > > > any > > > > >> > others. > > > > >> > >> So the source of inheritance is the local level, implying a > > deny > > > > >> because > > > > >> > >> the > > > > >> > >> local level has at least a specific allow. This means than > when > > > you > > > > >> drag > > > > >> > >> the > > > > >> > >> first time a right in the allow column, all other user/group > at > > > the > > > > >> same > > > > >> > >> level will have that right inherited deny from the current > > level. > > > > >> (For > > > > >> > >> those > > > > >> > >> who wonder and will check the source of the right service, > yes, > > > > there > > > > >> is > > > > >> > >> potential performance improvement by immediately denying when > a > > > > >> > >> non-matching > > > > >> > >> allow is found, currently we continue to check right at > higher > > > > level > > > > >> for > > > > >> > >> more deny, this is not really clever) > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> With these changes, I really feel that this last proposal > could > > > be > > > > a > > > > >> > real > > > > >> > >> improvement in the way rights are applied, and keeps the > > > interface > > > > >> > simple > > > > >> > >> at > > > > >> > >> the same time. > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> WDYT ? > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> Denis > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 07:57, Ecaterina Valica < > > > valicac(a)gmail.com > > > > > > > > > >> > >> wrote: > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 21:42, Alex Busenius < > > > > >> alex.busenius(a)xwiki.com > > > > >> > >> > >wrote: > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > I like this version, it makes clear what is > allowed/denied > > > and > > > > >> why, > > > > >> > >> but > > > > >> > >> > > it takes a lot of space. What if those rights names would > > be > > > > >> > replaced > > > > >> > >> by > > > > >> > >> > > big icons and placed side by side? Like this (sorry for > > > > >> ASCII-art): > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > -------------------+-------------------------------------+--+------ > > > > >> > >> > > Unregistered users | [+V] [+C] [+R] [-D] [-A] [-P] [-CC] > | > > | > > > > >> [-E] > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > Big Icons: > > > > >> > >> > We are using Silk set for our icons and this is > constraining. > > > > Also, > > > > >> > >> Rights > > > > >> > >> > version 3-4 were made having rights extensibility in mind, > > for > > > > use > > > > >> > cases > > > > >> > >> > like adding "captchaComment" right, or "annotate" right, or > > > > >> > >> > "applicationXusage" right .... so I don't think is very > good > > if > > > > >> > >> > applications > > > > >> > >> > are gonna have to choose their custom icon to represent > their > > > > >> custom > > > > >> > >> right, > > > > >> > >> > because is gonna be a mess in the UI. > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > There are few possible icons to choose from (in order to > keep > > > the > > > > >> > >> look&feel > > > > >> > >> > unitary) and having the developers choose their own icon > for > > > the > > > > >> right > > > > >> > >> they > > > > >> > >> > extend is gonna break the UI consistency. > > > > >> > >> > I think is much easier, extensible and less visual cryptic > to > > > > >> textual > > > > >> > >> > describe an extensible right. > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > Placed side by side: > > > > >> > >> > Version 4 takes a lot of space, yes, but the problem with > > side > > > by > > > > >> side > > > > >> > >> is > > > > >> > >> > that is less readable (harder to scan the rights order). > Also > > > > it's > > > > >> > >> easier > > > > >> > >> > to > > > > >> > >> > have a bigger area to select when you want to drag an item. > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > Thanks Alex for your feedback, > > > > >> > >> > Caty > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > Alex > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > > On 05/21/2010 07:51 PM, Ecaterina Valica wrote: > > > > >> > >> > > > Hi, > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > Changes: > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > - One additional column is added: "Default / > Inherited > > > > >> Rights", > > > > >> > >> by > > > > >> > >> > > > default all rights appear in this column > > > > >> > >> > > > - By using drag'n'drop items are tossed around > between > > > > >> "Allow > > > > >> > >> > rights", > > > > >> > >> > > > "Deny rights" and "Default / Inherited Rights" > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > Rights Proposal 4: > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights4Proposal > > > > >> > >> > > > Wiki Prototype: > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights4Wiki > > > > >> > >> > > > Space Prototype: > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > http://incubator.myxwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Improvements/Rights4Space > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > > This proposal is done by using feedback provided by > Roman > > > > >> Muntyanu > > > > >> > >> and > > > > >> > >> > > > Raluca Morosan. > > > > >> > >> > > > Thanks, > > > > >> > >> > > > Caty > > > > >> > >> > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > >> > >> > > > users mailing list > > > > >> > >> > > > users(a)xwiki.org > > > > >> > >> > > > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > > >> > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > > > >> > >> > > devs mailing list > > > > >> > >> > > devs(a)xwiki.org > > > > >> > >> > > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > > > > >> > >> > > > > > > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ > > > > >> > >> > users mailing list > > > > >> > >> > users(a)xwiki.org > > > > >> > >> > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users > > > > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> -- > > > > >> > >> Denis Gervalle > > > > >> > >> SOFTEC sa - CEO > > > > >> > >> eGuilde sarl - CTO > > > > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > > > > >> > >> devs mailing list > > > > >> > >> devs(a)xwiki.org > > > > >> > >> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > _______________________________________________ > > > > >> > users mailing list > > > > >> > users(a)xwiki.org > > > > >> > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> -- > > > > >> Denis Gervalle > > > > >> SOFTEC sa - CEO > > > > >> eGuilde sarl - CTO > > > > >> _______________________________________________ > > > > >> users mailing list > > > > >> users(a)xwiki.org > > > > >> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > users mailing list > > > > users(a)xwiki.org > > > > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Denis Gervalle > > > SOFTEC sa - CEO > > > eGuilde sarl - CTO > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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 > > > > > > -- > Denis Gervalle > SOFTEC sa - CEO > eGuilde sarl - CTO > _______________________________________________ > devs mailing list > devs(a)xwiki.org > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs >

14 years, 3 months

[xwiki-users] List of groups that a user belongs to

by Radek Rekas

Is it possible to get a list of all users that a user belongs to using velocity or groovy? The getAllMatchedUsers() method in the XWikiGroupService looks like it would do what I need but this does not seem to be exposed in the xwiki api for use in velocity/groovy? http://maven.xwiki.org/site/xwiki-core-parent/xwiki-core/apidocs/com/xpn/xw… Radek Rekas

14 years, 3 months

[xwiki-users] FW: Installation issue / import function

by Dalluege, Pierre (extern)

Hello Sergiu, hello xwiki-users, I alreday thought, that there should be something very stupid... ;-) Thanks to Sergiu I'm online now, thank you very much! Best regards Pierre -----Original Message----- From: Sergiu Dumitriu [mailto:sergiu@xwiki.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 5:15 PM To: XWiki Users Subject: Re: [xwiki-users] Installation issue / import function On 06/08/2010 12:32 PM, Dalluege, Pierre (extern) wrote: > Hello xwiki users, > > After installing xwiki 2.3 (and 2.3.1 afterwards) on Centos5.5 with > MySQL 5.x and Tomcat 5.5 I still have the issue that I cannot import > the default .xar file. The same is true for all .xar files: I > generated one from this wiki and I wanted to re-import it. No chance yet. > > Unfortunately I cannot see any problem on xwiki / tomcat or mysql level. > Everything looks fine. > > As I shouldn't provide screen shots, you may have a look at > http://m2m.fm:8080/xwiki/bin/admin/Main/WebPreferences. Importing only works from the main (wiki) administration, not from space administration. The correct link is http://m2m.fm:8080/xwiki/bin/admin/XWiki/XWikiPreferences I imported the default XAR for you. > > I am looking at this topic for some days now, with no result yet. ANY > IDEAS? > > Thank you very much for your support. > > Best regards > > Pierre -- Sergiu Dumitriu http://purl.org/net/sergiu/ _______________________________________________ users mailing list users(a)xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users

14 years, 3 months

Re: [xwiki-users] [xwiki-devs] showing xwiki-page incl. images in jsp.

by -the-

hi, a) yes i get a rendered content (html) of the page. b) no, its not a problem of the url. there are all absolute. its a problem of the rights. i need a additional login to get the images from xwiki. little workaround (not ideal) i give show rigths for the specific page to unregistered users.... (very bad) Am 08.06.2010 16:57, schrieb Marius Dumitru Florea: > On 06/08/2010 03:04 PM, -the- wrote: > >> hi, >> >> i'm new on the group but i use xwiki since 3 years. >> >> for a automatic display panel application we show a xwiki-page via rpc >> like the reference >> "http://platform.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Features/XMLRPC" >> >> but with this code we can't display images. >> only the name of the picture will displayed. >> >> have anybody a solution/reference for this problem. >> > You get the rendered content (HTML) of a wiki page and display it in an > HTML-aware widget? If so, the widget should take care of downloading the > images too. Maybe they are not loaded because the URLs are relative. Can > you debug and see how the image URL (the value of the src attribute) > looks like in the HTML returned by the XMLRPC call? Also, can you try to > insert an external image in a wiki page and see if that image is loaded > in your panel. External images should have absolute URLs. > > Hope this helps, > Marius > > >> with regards >> -the- >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > >

14 years, 3 months

[xwiki-users] Installation issue / import function

by Dalluege, Pierre (extern)

Hello xwiki users, After installing xwiki 2.3 (and 2.3.1 afterwards) on Centos5.5 with MySQL 5.x and Tomcat 5.5 I still have the issue that I cannot import the default .xar file. The same is true for all .xar files: I generated one from this wiki and I wanted to re-import it. No chance yet. Unfortunately I cannot see any problem on xwiki / tomcat or mysql level. Everything looks fine. As I shouldn't provide screen shots, you may have a look at http://m2m.fm:8080/xwiki/bin/admin/Main/WebPreferences. I am looking at this topic for some days now, with no result yet. ANY IDEAS? Thank you very much for your support. Best regards Pierre

14 years, 3 months

[xwiki-users] Column20Macro error

by Marine JULIAN

Hi, I downloaded the Column20Macro jar and put it in my WEB-INF/lib directory. Then, after restarting my server, I tried to use it to display two basic columns but I had this error : Failed to execute section macro : org.xwiki.rendering.macro.MacroExecutionException: Section macro expect at least one column macro as first-level children at org.xwiki.rendering.internal.macro.column.SectionMacro.execute(SectionMacro.java:78) at org.xwiki.rendering.internal.macro.column.SectionMacro.execute(SectionMacro.java:25) at org.xwiki.rendering.internal.transformation.MacroTransformation.transformOnce(MacroTransformation.java:174) at org.xwiki.rendering.internal.transformation.MacroTransformation.transform(MacroTransformation.java:119) at org.xwiki.rendering.internal.transformation.DefaultTransformationManager.performTransformations(DefaultTransformationManager.java:72) [...] at org.mortbay.io.nio.SelectChannelEndPoint.run(SelectChannelEndPoint.java:409) at org.mortbay.thread.QueuedThreadPool$PoolThread.run(QueuedThreadPool.java:582) It's quite weird because I used two column macro. Here my code : {{section justify="true"}} {{column}} a {{/column}} {{column}} b {{/column}} {{/section}} When I wrote use only one column macro inside the section one, I didn't have that error... But until two columns macro, the error appeared... Did I miss something ? Thanks, Marine

14 years, 3 months

[xwiki-users] Installation issue / import function

by Dalluege, Pierre (extern)

Hello xwiki users, hello asiri, Thank you very much for your personal support. I have no errors in the tomcat log, but I also increased the packet size before. BR Pierre -----Original Message----- From: Asiri Rathnayake [mailto:asiri.rathnayake@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 1:47 PM To: XWiki Users Subject: Re: [xwiki-users] Installation issue / import function Hi, On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 4:02 PM, Dalluege, Pierre (extern) < p.dalluege(a)external.telekom.de> wrote: > Hello xwiki users, > > After installing xwiki 2.3 (and 2.3.1 afterwards) on Centos5.5 with > MySQL 5.x and Tomcat 5.5 I still have the issue that I cannot import > the default .xar file. The same is true for all .xar files: I > generated one from this wiki and I wanted to re-import it. No chance yet. > > Unfortunately I cannot see any problem on xwiki / tomcat or mysql level. > Everything looks fine. > Are you sure tomcat logs don't have any exceptions logged? I have experienced issues with importing when max_allowed_packet (mysql configuration) is not large enough. And did you make sure that your xar file is valid? (Not corrupted) - Asiri _______________________________________________ users mailing list users(a)xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users

14 years, 3 months

[xwiki-users] [myxwiki] XWiki Enterprise 2.4 Milestone 1 Upgrade

by Thomas Mortagne

Hello, myxwiki.org has been upgraded to XE 2.4 Milestone 1, if you own a wiki hosted there you should have a look at : http://www.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Main/ReleaseNotesXWikiEnterprise24M1 We also strongly recommend an upgrade to the latest wiki version. To upgrade you must download XE 2.4 Milestone 1 XWiki XAR from : http://www.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Main/Download And follow the upgrade guide available at : http://platform.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/AdminGuide/Installation#HUpgrading… To be notified of the myxwiki.org server upgrade you can follow myxwiki on twitter: http://twitter.com/myxwiki Thanks, -- Thomas Mortagne

14 years, 3 months

[xwiki-users] showing xwiki-page incl. images in jsp.

by -the-

hi, i'm new on the group but i use xwiki since 3 years. for a automatic display panel application we show a xwiki-page via rpc like the reference "http://platform.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Features/XMLRPC" but with this code we can't display images. only the name of the picture will displayed. have anybody a solution/reference for this problem. with regards -the-

14 years, 3 months

← Newer
1
...
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Older →

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

xwiki-users June 2010