On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 21:04, Denis Gervalle <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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, thanks for the extra info Caty > > 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 > _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
