Leave original link but just don't add it to PopularLinks.
On 8/31/10, Ethan Jewett <[email protected]> wrote: > Oh, I see. Yes, that would make sense. So we would just leave the > original link in there, right? > > Ethan > > On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 8:12 PM, Richard Hirsch <[email protected]> > wrote: >> I agree with the solution of just removing those links that originate in >> pools. >> >> D. >> >> On 8/31/10, Vassil Dichev <[email protected]> wrote: >>> OK, I think this is a worse example, because there are many ways to >>> find a list of URLs in a wiki (which were generally just not designed >>> with privacy/security in mind). >>> >>> If you're willing to sacrifice convenience for security, the easiest >>> change is not to parse URLs in messages in pools- it will appear as >>> normal text, not as a hyperlink. The next thing we can do is set up a >>> different type of URL which doesn't take you to the shortened URL, but >>> directly to the target URL. >>> >>> If one really insists on shortening URLs in pools, then there must be >>> one set of shortened URLs per pool. I don't think anyone will claim >>> that this idea makes sense. >>> >>> Vassil >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Ethan Jewett <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> I agree in theory with your assessment of the google docs situation, >>>> but I still think we're violating the expectation of security around >>>> pools. >>>> >>>> Take another example: An HR department is using a secure wiki to >>>> discuss and organize an upcoming layoff. The wiki page is titled >>>> "October layoff planning" and the URL is >>>> https://hrwiki.corp.internal/October-layoff-planning. Someone posts >>>> this URL to the layoff-planning pool on esme (the same group of people >>>> with access to the wiki page) and a bunch of people in the pool click >>>> on it. Suddenly, the upcoming layoff has been announced to every esme >>>> user in the corporation. Whoops! >>>> >>>> The point is, maybe that private information shouldn't be in the URL, >>>> but a lot of applications do this whether or not it is a good idea. I >>>> think we need to take that reality into account and change the way >>>> this works to avoid the possibility of these scenarios. >>>> >>>> Ethan >>>> >>>> On Tuesday, August 31, 2010, Vassil Dichev <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> Ethan, this defeats the purpose of having an URL shortener and it only >>>>> gives you a false sense of security. Read my previous mail. >>>>> >>>>> Links have no notion of a pool. A link could come from messages in >>>>> different pools or it might not be clicked "inside a message" at all. >>>>> >>>>> Let me know what you think. >>>>> >>>>> Vassil >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 9:44 AM, Ethan Jewett <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> [Changed subject to start a new thread. Was: "New issues - a couple of >>>>>> blockers for 1.1 release"] >>>>>> >>>>>> That's correct. The "Popular messages" functionality just keeps a >>>>>> counter of how many times a message has been resent. If you look at >>>>>> the UserActor.scala, lines 197 & 198, you'll see that the statistic >>>>>> "ResendStat" is incremented when a message is resent, but only if the >>>>>> message is not in a pool. Then when we want to find out what the most >>>>>> popular messages are, we ask the PopStatsActor - for example in the >>>>>> "popular" method of UserSnip.scala - line 213. >>>>>> >>>>>> On the other hand, the "LinkClicked is incremented in UrlStore.scala - >>>>>> line 40. Here there is never a check to see if the link came from a >>>>>> message in a pool. (This counter is used in the "links" method in >>>>>> UserSnip.scala, after the "popular" method.) >>>>>> >>>>>> I think we need to check if a link came from a pool before >>>>>> incrementing the counter, but in order to do this we need to record >>>>>> what pool a link belonged to, so I think we need to make pool part of >>>>>> the key of the UrlStore object and then populate this field when a new >>>>>> link is created. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ethan >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 8:11 AM, Imtiaz Ahmed H E >>>>>> <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> In the home when I type in a message sharing it with one pool and >>>>>>> click >>>>>>> resend it does not show up in Popular Messages. But if the message is >>>>>>> public >>>>>>> it shows up on resend in Popular Pessages. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Can you explain. Haven't gotten to Popular Links yet. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Imtiaz >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ethan Jewett" >>>>>>> <[email protected]> >>>>>>> To: <[email protected]> >>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 11:37 AM >>>>>>> Subject: Re: New issues - a couple of blockers for 1.1 release >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The issue doesn't happen with Popular Messages, only with Popular >>>>>>> Links. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I need to look into the implementation, but I have a feeling the >>>>>>> Popular Links issue is going to be a headache. I believe that for a >>>>>>> given link there is no way to tell what message it shows up in, which >>>>>>> would make it impossible to tell if it is a link from a pooled >>>>>>> message >>>>>>> or not. We may have to modify the data model for storing links to >>>>>>> flag >>>>>>> the ones that started out in a pooled message... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regarding Pubsubhubbub, as Dick said, there's no hurry. I don't think >>>>>>> I'll be working on it over the next couple of weeks. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for all your efforts! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ethan >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 4:20 AM, Imtiaz Ahmed H E >>>>>>> <[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Re https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ESME-267 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I haven't tried this but plan to fix it right away. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Tell me, is it only the links showing up in 'Popular Links' or is >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>> problem with the message itself also showing up in 'PopularMessages' >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Looks like I'll never get going with pubsubhubub ! First there was >>>>>>>> Dick's >>>>>>>> Release Planning mail with the pending 1.1 issues and now here are >>>>>>>> some >>>>>>>> more. Plan to get going after all 1.1 ending issues are resolved. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> However, Ethan it was your issue originally and if you feel you want >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> take >>>>>>>> it back again to push it to closure faster or something please do, >>>>>>>> otherwise >>>>>>>> I'll re-start on it once 1.1 is done... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Imtiaz >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Hirsch" >>>>>>>> <[email protected]> >>>>>>>> To: < >>>> >>> >> >
