You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@jspwiki.apache.org by Florian Holeczek <fl...@holeczek.de> on 2010/02/02 22:19:14 UTC
separate space for user profiles
Hi devs,
I want to start a discussion on a special aspect of the organization of
our new backend.
I think it might be useful to separate user profile pages from "normal"
pages. The following advantages came to my mind:
* no name collisions
* possibility of explicitly marking a page as a user profile (and thus
possibility for a visitor recognizing a page as user profile)
* possibility of having an access control template for this kind of
pages (e.g. only its "owner" may edit it).
WDYT?
Best regards
Florian
RE: separate space for user profiles
Posted by "Dalen, Andre van" <an...@siemens.com>.
Hi Florian,
I don't want to be too negative, but this seems to violate the KISS
principle,
the strength of Wiki's (imho) is that everything is a page.
You could always introduce a category page UserProfiles that is
referenced
from those kinds of pages.
regards, Andre
-----Original Message-----
From: Florian Holeczek [mailto:florian@holeczek.de]
Sent: dinsdag 2 februari 2010 22:19
To: jspwiki-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: separate space for user profiles
Hi devs,
I want to start a discussion on a special aspect of the organization of
our new backend.
I think it might be useful to separate user profile pages from "normal"
pages. The following advantages came to my mind:
* no name collisions
* possibility of explicitly marking a page as a user profile (and thus
possibility for a visitor recognizing a page as user profile)
* possibility of having an access control template for this kind of
pages (e.g. only its "owner" may edit it).
WDYT?
Best regards
Florian
Re: separate space for user profiles
Posted by Florian Holeczek <fl...@holeczek.de>.
Page types might also be useful for predefined pages, which are used by
the application logic, like help pages or some belonging to the workflow
stuff. They're "system pages".
Regards
Florian
Am 03.02.2010 15:10, schrieb Andrew Jaquith:
> Florian, I agree that user home pages are "special," and that we
> should do something about it. But I'd be reluctant to use access
> control templates. Instead, it would be better to extend the security
> policy grammar so that the defaults are sensible. For example, for
> groups, one of the default policies is this:
>
> permission org.apache.wiki.auth.permissions.GroupPermission
> "*:<groupmember>", "edit";
>
> ...which means "any members of the group can edit it." It's easy to
> imagine how this might extend to pages, e.g., creating a <self> or
> <fullname> token that would be evaluated. I think this is probably
> better than templating.
>
> Your comment also made me think about page "types," in the sense that
> we might want to consider adding support for this -- probably as an
> Enum. Home pages might be one type; comments (which will be sub-pages
> at some point) might be another. But I haven't thought too hard about
> this just yet.
>
> Andrew
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 4:19 PM, Florian Holeczek <fl...@holeczek.de> wrote:
>> Hi devs,
>>
>> I want to start a discussion on a special aspect of the organization of
>> our new backend.
>> I think it might be useful to separate user profile pages from "normal"
>> pages. The following advantages came to my mind:
>> * no name collisions
>> * possibility of explicitly marking a page as a user profile (and thus
>> possibility for a visitor recognizing a page as user profile)
>> * possibility of having an access control template for this kind of
>> pages (e.g. only its "owner" may edit it).
>>
>> WDYT?
>>
>> Best regards
>> Florian
>>
Re: separate space for user profiles
Posted by Murray Altheim <mu...@altheim.com>.
Andrew Jaquith wrote:
> Florian, I agree that user home pages are "special," and that we
> should do something about it. But I'd be reluctant to use access
> control templates. Instead, it would be better to extend the security
> policy grammar so that the defaults are sensible. For example, for
> groups, one of the default policies is this:
>
> permission org.apache.wiki.auth.permissions.GroupPermission
> "*:<groupmember>", "edit";
>
> ...which means "any members of the group can edit it." It's easy to
> imagine how this might extend to pages, e.g., creating a <self> or
> <fullname> token that would be evaluated. I think this is probably
> better than templating.
>
> Your comment also made me think about page "types," in the sense that
> we might want to consider adding support for this -- probably as an
> Enum. Home pages might be one type; comments (which will be sub-pages
> at some point) might be another. But I haven't thought too hard about
> this just yet.
Hi Andrew,
I've long been playing with different ways to implement some kind of
forms functionality, mostly via rather complicated plugins (e.g., I
managed to pull all the forms features into one plugin that managed
state). But all this is pretty fragile and leaves the plugin syntax
open to user modification, as well as providing no ability to maintain
consistency across pages -- every form could have unique names and
values.
What I really want is a admin-controlled ability to create forms,
which is a form of page typing, so that a JSPWiki instance could be
the basis of an online database. This could be intermixed with normal
wikitext content, so the form could be as complicated as a user
profile, a product description, a library accession record, etc., or
as simple as a list of page tags (i.e., a single field). It'd be great
if this were somehow modular, so that while still handled in a template
(JSP) rather than in wiki syntax, it would be within the control of the
admin rather than the users, with the form parameters stored as page
metadata, and therefore accessible to code. While this could be done
entirely as JSP inclusions, it'd obviously be better as some kind of
page 'type', where if a page contained a particular type value it
would display (and therefore store) a group of associated metadata
fields. User preferences would be an obvious start.
Just some ideas... I do think being able to use JSPWiki as an online
database would add tremendously to its value. You can see how
Wikipedia has tried (and in some ways succeeded, in other ways failed,
in terms of complexity) with page templating, such as for people,
countries, etc.
Murray
...........................................................................
Murray Altheim <murray09 at altheim dot com> === = =
http://www.altheim.com/murray/ = = ===
SGML Grease Monkey, Banjo Player, Wantanabe Zen Monk = = = =
Boundless wind and moon - the eye within eyes,
Inexhaustible heaven and earth - the light beyond light,
The willow dark, the flower bright - ten thousand houses,
Knock at any door - there's one who will respond.
-- The Blue Cliff Record
Re: separate space for user profiles
Posted by Florian Holeczek <fl...@holeczek.de>.
Hi Andrew,
access control templates are just an example of the benefits which arise
from treating user pages special. I like and prefer your approach!
Good point regarding comments... these are special, too, and should be
treated this way. Reality shows that the current approach leads to pages
which need extensive gardening in order not to contain too much trash
and contradictive information. By separating the comments, people will
use them the intended way.
Regards
Florian
Am 03.02.2010 15:10, schrieb Andrew Jaquith:
> Florian, I agree that user home pages are "special," and that we
> should do something about it. But I'd be reluctant to use access
> control templates. Instead, it would be better to extend the security
> policy grammar so that the defaults are sensible. For example, for
> groups, one of the default policies is this:
>
> permission org.apache.wiki.auth.permissions.GroupPermission
> "*:<groupmember>", "edit";
>
> ...which means "any members of the group can edit it." It's easy to
> imagine how this might extend to pages, e.g., creating a <self> or
> <fullname> token that would be evaluated. I think this is probably
> better than templating.
>
> Your comment also made me think about page "types," in the sense that
> we might want to consider adding support for this -- probably as an
> Enum. Home pages might be one type; comments (which will be sub-pages
> at some point) might be another. But I haven't thought too hard about
> this just yet.
>
> Andrew
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 4:19 PM, Florian Holeczek <fl...@holeczek.de> wrote:
>> Hi devs,
>>
>> I want to start a discussion on a special aspect of the organization of
>> our new backend.
>> I think it might be useful to separate user profile pages from "normal"
>> pages. The following advantages came to my mind:
>> * no name collisions
>> * possibility of explicitly marking a page as a user profile (and thus
>> possibility for a visitor recognizing a page as user profile)
>> * possibility of having an access control template for this kind of
>> pages (e.g. only its "owner" may edit it).
>>
>> WDYT?
>>
>> Best regards
>> Florian
>>
Re: separate space for user profiles
Posted by Janne Jalkanen <ja...@ecyrd.com>.
Yup, I'd go with Andrew here. We *could* though put all user pages under something like "Users/JanneJalkanen" once we enable subpages.
Incidentally, there's already support for the mimetypes for pages; one thing I was thinking was enabling stuff like doing templates by switching renderers - how about a TemplateRenderer that combines two pages so that you can have a proper form instead of just basic HTML?
/Janne
On 3 Feb 2010, at 16:10, Andrew Jaquith wrote:
> Florian, I agree that user home pages are "special," and that we
> should do something about it. But I'd be reluctant to use access
> control templates. Instead, it would be better to extend the security
> policy grammar so that the defaults are sensible. For example, for
> groups, one of the default policies is this:
>
> permission org.apache.wiki.auth.permissions.GroupPermission
> "*:<groupmember>", "edit";
>
> ...which means "any members of the group can edit it." It's easy to
> imagine how this might extend to pages, e.g., creating a <self> or
> <fullname> token that would be evaluated. I think this is probably
> better than templating.
>
> Your comment also made me think about page "types," in the sense that
> we might want to consider adding support for this -- probably as an
> Enum. Home pages might be one type; comments (which will be sub-pages
> at some point) might be another. But I haven't thought too hard about
> this just yet.
>
> Andrew
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 4:19 PM, Florian Holeczek <fl...@holeczek.de> wrote:
>> Hi devs,
>>
>> I want to start a discussion on a special aspect of the organization of
>> our new backend.
>> I think it might be useful to separate user profile pages from "normal"
>> pages. The following advantages came to my mind:
>> * no name collisions
>> * possibility of explicitly marking a page as a user profile (and thus
>> possibility for a visitor recognizing a page as user profile)
>> * possibility of having an access control template for this kind of
>> pages (e.g. only its "owner" may edit it).
>>
>> WDYT?
>>
>> Best regards
>> Florian
>>
Re: separate space for user profiles
Posted by Andrew Jaquith <an...@gmail.com>.
Florian, I agree that user home pages are "special," and that we
should do something about it. But I'd be reluctant to use access
control templates. Instead, it would be better to extend the security
policy grammar so that the defaults are sensible. For example, for
groups, one of the default policies is this:
permission org.apache.wiki.auth.permissions.GroupPermission
"*:<groupmember>", "edit";
...which means "any members of the group can edit it." It's easy to
imagine how this might extend to pages, e.g., creating a <self> or
<fullname> token that would be evaluated. I think this is probably
better than templating.
Your comment also made me think about page "types," in the sense that
we might want to consider adding support for this -- probably as an
Enum. Home pages might be one type; comments (which will be sub-pages
at some point) might be another. But I haven't thought too hard about
this just yet.
Andrew
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 4:19 PM, Florian Holeczek <fl...@holeczek.de> wrote:
> Hi devs,
>
> I want to start a discussion on a special aspect of the organization of
> our new backend.
> I think it might be useful to separate user profile pages from "normal"
> pages. The following advantages came to my mind:
> * no name collisions
> * possibility of explicitly marking a page as a user profile (and thus
> possibility for a visitor recognizing a page as user profile)
> * possibility of having an access control template for this kind of
> pages (e.g. only its "owner" may edit it).
>
> WDYT?
>
> Best regards
> Florian
>