I just raised https://github.com/owncloud/documentation/issues/389 for adding the shared_with_me flag to the docs.
On 06/23/2014 01:59 PM, David A. Velasco wrote: > Thanks, Thomas. > > Checking the link, maybe there is a bug in master, since at this > moment I have a file and a folder shared with other user and the 'S' > permission does not appear in them, for none of both users. > > I will check deeper and open a new issue at core. > > El 23/06/2014 13:49, Thomas Müller escribió: >> Am Montag, den 23.06.2014 um 13:14 schrieb David A. Velasco: >>> Hi everybody. >>> >>> We are going to adapt now the mobile clients to the new model too, and >>> would appreciate some more information. >>> >>> We checked the web interface to see that the list of files shared with >>> the current user are retrieved from the Share API with the parameter >>> 'shared_with_me=true' . Seems this is not included in the current >>> documentation at >>> https://github.com/owncloud/documentation/blob/stable6/developer_manual/core/ocs-share-api.rst >>> >>> . Is there any draft available in other place including information >>> about this new parameter? More specifically, we are interested in >>> how it >>> interacts with other parameters, such as 'path'. The mobile clients >>> take >>> advantage of 'path' to retrieve only the shares for the current folder, >>> that is refreshed when the user browses into it. >>> >>> On the other hand, some days ago we noticed that the 'share_with_me' >>> files included an 'S' in the <oc:permissions> property in the WebDAV >>> responses, and thought that could be related to their nature as shared >>> files. Checking again in daily.owncloud.com/master seems the character >>> is not in the property anymore. Was our first assumption wrong? Where >>> can we find some documentation about the meaning of characters at >>> <oc:permissions>? >>> >> The webdav permissions are 'documented' here >> https://github.com/owncloud/core/issues/8322 >> >> We should add this to our official documentation as well. >> >> Take care, >> >> Thomas >> >>> Thanks in advance. >>> >>> >>> El 20/06/2014 16:48, Bjoern Schiessle escribió: >>>> Hi Olivier, >>>> >>>> On Thu, 19 Jun 2014 12:46:58 +0200 Olivier Goffart wrote: >>>>> ownCloud 7 is about to introduce a new model for shared folder. >>>>> Please someone correct me if i am wrong: >>>>> >>>>> - In ownCloud 6, all shared folder were sub-folders of the "Shared/" >>>>> directory >>>>> - In ownCloud 7, shared folders first appears as 'normal' folder in >>>>> the root directory, but the user can then move them anywhere. >>>> that's correct. >>>> >>>>> So the question is: Should we really try to support moving the >>>>> shared directory from the client? >>>> I think we should try to support it. Organizing your shares freely was >>>> one of the main goal for the changes. It would be really bad if it >>>> would >>>> only work for the web interface. >>>> >>>>> Should we try to get more elaborate algorithm to detect moves in >>>>> order to get this use case properly (tree comparison)? >>>> Probably we have to think about it. >>>> >>>> If I understood you correctly this is only a issue if changes >>>> happen on >>>> the client side while the sync client doesn't run. >>>> Maybe we could split-up the sync client in two components. One >>>> component could by a small daemon who gets started with the system and >>>> monitors the changes to the file system. If the user starts the >>>> ownCloud sync client we could ask the daemon what happened. Sure, the >>>> admin could still stop the daemon. But that's something different from >>>> closing a application in the system tray. >>>> >>>> That's just a random idea I had in mind while reading your mail. The >>>> main idea is to always track file system changes, even if the user >>>> decides to stop the sync client for some reasons (e.g. because he is >>>> in a local network and don't want that the sync client tries to >>>> re-connect again and again). I don't know much about the internals of >>>> the sync client. Maybe it is a bad idea. >>>> >>>>> Should we ignore this problem as a corner case? (IMHO not, because >>>>> its implication are bad enough). >>>> I don't think we should ignore it. Sharing documents by accident >>>> can be >>>> really painful. This should be avoided at all costs. >>>> >>>> cheers, >>>> Björn >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Devel mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://mailman.owncloud.org/mailman/listinfo/devel >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Devel mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://mailman.owncloud.org/mailman/listinfo/devel >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Devel mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://mailman.owncloud.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > > _______________________________________________ > Devel mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.owncloud.org/mailman/listinfo/devel _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.owncloud.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
