On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 13:21, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote:
> See below > > On Aug 3, 2011, at 1:08 PM, Denis Gervalle wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 11:39, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Hi Denis, > >> > >> On Aug 3, 2011, at 11:19 AM, Denis Gervalle wrote: > >> > >>> Hi Vincent, > >>> > >>> Why are you proposing 2 booleans ? Is there non-technical application > >> spaces > >>> ? > >> > >> Here's an example: The Scheduler space: > >> - it's a technical space (i.e. not shown to all users) > >> - it's an application space (i.e. shown in the Application Panel for > >> advanced users) > >> > >> A second example: The Blog space: > >> - it's a non technical space (i.e. shown to all users) > >> - it's an application space (i.e. shown to all in the Application Panel) > > > > > >> Another example: The Sandbox space: > >> - it's a non technical space (i.e. shown to all users) > >> - it's not an application space (i.e. not shown in the Application Panel > >> but shown in the Spaces list in the Dashboard - i.e. in the "Content" > spaces > >> list) > >> > >>> Maybe a static list for qualifying spaces would be better and more > >> flexible, > >>> WDYT ? > >>> Or else, why not having a boolean for really hiding spaces, the true > >>> replacement of blacklistedspaces (there could be non-technical spaces > >> that > >>> admin want to hide anyway) and maybe a static list for qualifying them > if > >>> you have identified this need? > >> > >> To do that you'd need two lists for hiding spaces: one for simple users > and > >> one for advanced users. That's because both categories of users don't > >> necessarily match in term of needs. > >> > >> I'm fine to have 3 booleans for each space if you think we need to have > >> this use case (i.e. ability to not show spaces for advanced users - I'm > >> still unsure we want to do this though): > >> - is an application space? > >> - is hidden for simple users (replacing technical space idea)? > >> - is hidden for advanced users? > >> > > > > This is going worse IMHO. Finally we needs filtering spaces based on > users > > and "types" of space. Reading this, I am more in favor of "typing" spaces > (a > > single extensible static list), and compute the blacklistedspaces list > based > > on these "types", as well as any other list of spaces you may imagine, > like > > the list of application spaces. For the blacklistedspaces, computing the > > list in velocity is finally not so bad, and could be adapted depending on > > your use cases. "Typing" spaces would only helps doing it better. > > > > WDYT? > > If I understand correctly you're in agreement with all that I've proposed > in my initial email except for the implementation part for which you're > suggesting to use a single "types" property that would hold all possible > space types (rather than having several boolean fields). Something similar > to tags basically. > > I'm very fine with this. I even like it since it's a generalization. > > It means though that we need to have some "well-known types" on which we > can depend. Based on the use cases defined so far we would have 3 possible > values: > - "technical": only visible for advanced users > - "application": listed in the Application Panel (and excluded from the > Spaces list in the dashboard) > - "hidden": not displayed to anyone including advanced users (we'd need to > define more clearly in which screens they'd be hidden and in which others > they'd be visible to advanced users though) > > I'm proposing to start with "technical" and "application" for now. > > WDYT? > You get it Vincent, and sorry if my reply have been unclear. For the list, it should stay open, and just fullfil your current needs. I am not sure hidden is a correct typing however, so I would start with 3 "default" (or whatever you like), "technical" and "application". Do not forget in your thought that it would also be nice to filter search results based on these as well. I am +1 for that implementation or something similar and open that do not link filtering and "typing" of spaces. Denis > > Thanks > -Vincent > > > > > Denis > > > > > >> What do others think? Do we need the ability to hide spaces for advanced > >> users? > >> > >> Thanks > >> -Vincent > >> > >>> Your idea seams to me interesting but will probably fall short or be > >> misused > >>> on the long term... > >>> > >>> Denis > >>> > >>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 19:05, Vincent Massol <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hi devs, > >>>> > >>>> I'd like to propose 2 small changes that should make a huge difference > >> for > >>>> our users. > >>>> > >>>> 1) Introduce the notion of technical spaces > >>>> > >>>> The idea is that in WebPreferences for a space we should have a > boolean > >>>> property mentioning if the space is a technical space or not. > >>>> This will allow to: > >>>> * Remove the blacklistedspaces variable > >>>> * List only non technical spaces for simple users > >>>> > >>>> 2) Introduce the notion of Application spaces > >>>> > >>>> The idea is that in WebPreferences for a space we should have a > boolean > >>>> property mentioning if the space is an application space or not. > >>>> This will allow to: > >>>> * Replace the Quick Links Panel with an Applications Panel listing all > >>>> spaces that are application spaces > >>>> * Only list Content spaces in the Spaces Gadget in the Dashboard > >>>> * Add the ability for extensions to declare new applications that > >>>> automatically appear in the Applications Panel > >>>> > >>>> I'd also like to suggest adding a global admin preferences to quickly > >>>> select all spaces that are application and/or technical spaces > (imagine > >> a > >>>> list of all spaces with 2 checkboxes for each space listed). This > makes > >> it > >>>> very easy for the admin to reconfigure what are application spaces > (thus > >>>> showing in the app panel) and what spaces should be hidden for simple > >> users. > >>>> Of course modifying these would modify the WebPreferences of the said > >>>> spaces. > >>>> > >>>> In addition to make this autodiscoverable I'd suggest that for admins > >> the > >>>> Application Panel should have a link to this admin feature. Something > >> like > >>>> "Configure Applications...". > >>>> > >>>> WDYT? > >>>> > >>>> Thanks > >>>> -Vincent > >>>> > >>>> PS: I'm very excited about these 2 ideas since they're simple and IMO > >> will > >>>> make XE much easier to use and understand for people starting to use > it. > > _______________________________________________ > 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
