Hi Garren, I will definetly look into that and PouchDB sounds like a good option for now. I think we will see on a longer term if there is any more client data to be stored there, but from the replies to this topic it seems to be a good idea to have a storage facility for fauxton.
Regards, Markus On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 11:20 AM, Garren Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Markus, > > I think the best option for now is to do it all in browser. Ideally using > PouchDB. That way we can explore and decide what user data we want to store > and how we want to store it. Once we have a better idea of that, we can > then hook it up into CouchDB. Ideally if we get it right with PouchDB it > would just be a matter of syncing between the two. Would that work for you? > > Cheers > Garren > > On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 7:20 AM, Paul Davis <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Don't we already have a db-per-user plugin/feature thing? Could > > Fauxton just not make use of that? Beyond that I'd rather not go > > creating more "special" databases as it's already leading to some > > rather complicated interactions with all of the various "features" we > > have to add to make each new type behave properly. > > > > On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 11:38 PM, Markus Fischböck > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I like the idea of a database per user. I thought about creating such a > > > database by Fauxton upon login, but that won't work if the user does > not > > > have admin privileges, so I guess this is something that should be > > > implemented in Couch itself. > > > Unfortunately I can't make any contribution to this code wise, since > I'm > > not > > > speaking Erlang :( > > > I'm also not sure if this would make it into 2.0, since it seems the > > project > > > goes into RC phase now. So how could we proceed on that? > > > > > > Regards, > > > Markus > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 15.07.2016 11:23, Garren Smith wrote: > > >> > > >> I was speaking to Jan about this in #couchdb-dev. He makes some very > > >> important points: > > >> > > >> +jan____> thing is, fauxton runs under the security context of the > > logged > > >> in user > > >> 11:12 J<+jan____> so each user would need their own fauxton db > > >> 11:12 J<+jan____> or we bleed info > > >> 11:12 J<+jan____> or it is admin only > > >> 11:13 J<+jan____> but then, multiple admin accounts are possible, and > > >> they’d share it > > >> 11:13 J<+jan____> I wonder if a browser-local PouchDB instance is the > > >> better option > > >> > > >> A PouchDB instance might be better but then a user loses their info > when > > >> they change browsers. Otherwise Jan mentioned a db-per-user which > could > > >> also work really well. > > >> > > >> On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Garren Smith <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > >> > > >>> Markus, good points. I'm definitely +1 for the idea. Like Samuel > says, > > >>> storing notifications would be excellent. It would definitely allow > us > > to > > >>> improve the user experience. > > >>> > > >>> Cheers > > >>> Garren > > >>> > > >>> On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 8:45 AM, Samuel Kidman <[email protected]> > > >>> wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> It would be nice to store notifications in such a database. Admins > > could > > >>>> then see which actions have been undertaken through fauxton and by > > whom. > > >>>> > > >>>> On 15 July 2016 at 06:25, Markus Fischböck <[email protected]> > > >>>> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> Hi Garren, > > >>>>> > > >>>>> I guess that depends on how sensitive the data in there would be. > > It's > > >>>> > > >>>> not > > >>>>> > > >>>>> planned to store any passwords for remote servers, so the user > would > > >>>> > > >>>> need > > >>>>> > > >>>>> to enter those upon each replication. So in the worst case a user > > would > > >>>>> only see bookmarked databases on a remote server but would not be > > able > > >>>> > > >>>> to > > >>>>> > > >>>>> access them. Given the fact that the same behavior is present on a > > >>>>> local > > >>>>> machine I would assume this to be OK. > > >>>>> From what I can tell with my limited knowledge of the internals > it's > > >>>>> currently not possible to secure specific documents and would > > probably > > >>>>> cause some interference with replication as well. > > >>>>> So my solution would be to simply not store any sensitive there. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Regards, > > >>>>> Markus > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> On 14.07.2016 12:19, Garren Smith wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> Hi Markus, > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> I like the idea of a Fauxton system database. I think we could > store > > >>>> > > >>>> some > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> useful things in there. But how would we manage security and > > >>>> > > >>>> permissions > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> on > > >>>>>> the database? > > >>>>>> Would one user be able to see bookmarks for another use when > viewing > > >>>> > > >>>> that > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> database? > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Cheers > > >>>>>> Garren > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 9:54 PM, Markus Fischböck < > > >>>> > > >>>> [email protected] > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Hi everyone! > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> I'm currently working on a new replicator add-on for the Fauxton > > UI. > > >>>> > > >>>> One > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> of the features I'd like to implement is a bookmark manager > where a > > >>>> > > >>>> user > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> can create and save bookmarks in order to have them for quick > > access, > > >>>>>>> when selecting hosts/databases during replication. This saves the > > >>>>>>> user > > >>>>>>> the hastle to remember the full URL to any source/target database > > >>>> > > >>>> he/she > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> want's to replicate from. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> I had a discussion lately with Robert Kowalski where to store > those > > >>>>>>> bookmarks and I had a couple of ideas in mind: > > >>>>>>> a) Saving the bookmarks on the local storage of the browser => > this > > >>>>>>> is > > >>>>>>> the least desired option, since the bookmarks would only be > > available > > >>>> > > >>>> on > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> the current browser. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> b) Saving the bookmarks in the users document in the _user > Database > > >>>>>>> => > > >>>>>>> Not really nice, since we would pollute the user object with data > > >>>>>>> from > > >>>>>>> Fauxton. I guess it's not supposed to work that way. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> c) Having a fauxton related system database (e.g. _fauxton) where > > we > > >>>> > > >>>> can > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> store UI related data. For now this would be bookmarks, but could > > >>>>>>> come > > >>>>>>> in handy for other purposes like UI settings and that a like. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> I wanted to ask, if it would be possible (and desireable) to add > > such > > >>>> > > >>>> a > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> system database for the Fauxton project. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Kind Regards, > > >>>>>>> Markus > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>> > > > > > >
