W dniu 10-11-04 21:28, [Ricardo Rodriguez] eBioTIC. wrote:
Piotr Dziubecki wrote:
W dniu 10-11-04 12:13, [Ricardo Rodriguez]
eBioTIC. wrote:
Piotr Dziubecki wrote:
Hi :)
W dniu 10-11-04 11:08, [Ricardo Rodriguez] eBioTIC. wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Piotr Dziubecki wrote:
>
>
>> Hello :)
>>
>> I configured my XWiki instance in the following way:
>>
>>
>>
>> #-# This parameter will activate the sectional editing.
>> xwiki.section.edit=1
>>
>> #-# This parameter controls the depth of sections that have section editing.
>> #-# By default level 1 and level 2 sections have section editing.
>> xwiki.section.depth=6
>>
>>
>> I have many users working on documents simultaneously and in order to minimize
document locking and possible
>> merging I encourage them to edit sections/paragraphs instead. I noticed that
when, for instance, two users
>> edit different sections within the same page, the latter gets the message:
>>
>> This object is currently locked by user1
>>
>> I checked and it's possible to force editing and save both of concurrent
changes to that document, but the
>> message itself is a bit confusing to the users. I'm asking if it's
possible to change xwiki configuration to
>> not display that message when the users edit different paragraphs within the same
page ?
>>
>>
> To the best of my understanding locking is set a document level. So, if
> any user edits a section, all other users will receive that message.
>
> I think what you are doing is a bit risky. I've had here some problems
> following the same problem. When an user received this message, although
> she/he is editing only a section, there is no way of knowing if they are
> in the same section or in a different one. Even more, if you edit a
> document using the same user at two different locations, you won't
> receive the locking message.
>
>
Yes, I came from the Media Wiki and section editing is pretty popular way of
collaborative editing (
avoiding the whole page locks ).
I also arrives to XWiki from MediaWiki years ago. So, with the current
MediaWiki release, is it possible to do section edition and get a
warning only if two users edit the same section?
Thanks!
To be sure, I did some tests here:
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Sandbox
no warnings, you can even edit the same section but then you'll need to get through
the merge phase. In that
case you see such a message:
Someone else has changed this page since you started editing it. The upper text area
contains the page text
as it currently exists. Your changes are shown in the lower text area. You will have to
merge your changes
into the existing text.
Well, I don't see this blocking behaviour working with MediaWiki
sandbox... I don't know why! In any case, MediaWiki is not the case here!
Just summing up:
Thanks for that summary, let me comment on your thoughts:
1. Simultaneous edition is possible, but not advisable with the current
XWiki release.
Yes, especially that there is no merge phase after concurrent editing ( or maybe there is
a 'merge plugin' -
I'd be grateful for any info on that ). In that case you end up with the article
content overridden by
someone else and your only hope is to dig in the document's history and try to fix
edits manually.
2. Locking is done at document level.
Is that going to change in the future ? In my opinion that basically blocks user
groups/communities from
working on the documents in a collaborative way. Is it much work to make that lock
'section sensitive',
architecture-wise ? If someone could describe what should be done / changed in order to
achieve that, maybe
we could figure out a solution for that issue.
3. A true real-time edition editor for XWiki is on its
way and will
solve all these issues!
Well, it could be, but it's based on the js/ajax - it could be tricky to achieve a
good level of
compatibility between browsers ( of course it could be done, Google docs is a good example
here ). Of course
I'd take that right away in the stable form. But I think merging/lock on the section
level could be more
than enough for the ordinary wiki users ( Wikipedia is basing on that model on a huge
scale and it's doing
fine ;) )
It will be great if some developer or more skilled user could review
this statements to confirm/deny/complete them! Thanks!
I concur. Currently I'm struggling to figure out how to get over that problem. I can
tell my users just to
ignore the lock message, but that is not super safe and could cause a content
loss/corruption.
Looking forward to your feedback guys !
Regards,
Piotr