On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 5:58 PM, Denis Gervalle <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
+1 for space type concept > > 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 > -- Thomas Mortagne _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
