On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 16:33, Ecaterina Valica <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Denis, > > On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 16:52, Denis Gervalle <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 12:39, Ecaterina Valica <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 18:29, Denis Gervalle <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 17:08, Guillaume Lerouge < > [email protected] > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 11:03, Ecaterina Valica <[email protected] > > > > > > 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.png > > > > > > 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#HNavigation > ? > > > > > > 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 > > 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 > > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Guillaume Lerouge > > > > > Product Manager - XWiki SAS > > > > > Skype: wikibc > > > > > Twitter: glerouge > > > > > http://guillaumelerouge.com/ > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > devs mailing list > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Denis Gervalle > > > > SOFTEC sa - CEO > > > > eGuilde sarl - CTO > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > users mailing list > > > > [email protected] > > > > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > users mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/users > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Denis Gervalle > > SOFTEC sa - CEO > > eGuilde sarl - CTO > > _______________________________________________ > > devs mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > > > _______________________________________________ > devs mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > -- Denis Gervalle SOFTEC sa - CEO eGuilde sarl - CTO _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
