sure thing!
Eric Dalquist wrote:
That is great work Tim! Would you be willing to post a trimmed down
data.xml & dlm config? I'd like to get something like this in as the
default for uP3 to move people away from the template user practices and
to defining layouts via DLM fragments. Giving them a nice starting point
out of the box seems like a great way to approach that.
-Eric
Timothy Carroll wrote:
thanks for all the help. i have everything working the way i'd like now.
from what i can tell, you need a minimum of two template users defined:
1. guest: used for unauthenticated users
2. other: used for authenticated users
i was trying to get away with one, and apparently that was not okay.
i set up both of these user layouts with only a root node, and then
used dlm.xml to define which fragments should be merged in.
Timothy Carroll wrote:
interesting. my guest user name is set to 'guest', and the user is
not authenticated. however, i am still not getting the frg-guest.
what is more interesting, the log seems to be showing everything
being evaluated properly. the frg-guest and frg-welcome fragments
return isApplicable=true, but they are not showing up.
INFO [http-8084-Processor24] dlm.FragmentDefinition.[] Oct/17
18:49:05 - >>>> calling frg-guest.isApplicable( guest )
INFO [http-8084-Processor24] dlm.FragmentDefinition.[] Oct/17
18:49:05 - ---- frg-guest.isApplicable( guest )=true
INFO [http-8084-Processor24] dlm.FragmentDefinition.[] Oct/17
18:49:05 - >>>> calling frg-welcome.isApplicable( guest )
INFO [http-8084-Processor24] dlm.FragmentDefinition.[] Oct/17
18:49:05 - ---- frg-welcome.isApplicable( guest )=true
INFO [http-8084-Processor24] dlm.FragmentDefinition.[] Oct/17
18:49:05 - >>>> calling frg-i-start.isApplicable( guest )
DEBUG [http-8084-Processor24] providers.Paren.[] Oct/17 18:49:05 -
calling
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
op=OR].isApplicable()
DEBUG [http-8084-Processor24] providers.Paren.[] Oct/17 18:49:05 -
calling
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
op=NOT].isApplicable()
DEBUG [http-8084-Processor24] providers.Paren.[] Oct/17 18:49:05 -
---- [EMAIL PROTECTED],
op=NOT].isApplicable()=false
DEBUG [http-8084-Processor24] providers.Paren.[] Oct/17 18:49:05 -
---- [EMAIL PROTECTED],
op=OR].isApplicable()=false
INFO [http-8084-Processor24] dlm.FragmentDefinition.[] Oct/17
18:49:05 - ---- frg-i-start.isApplicable( guest )=false
INFO [http-8084-Processor24] dlm.FragmentDefinition.[] Oct/17
18:49:05 - >>>> calling frg-uic-connect.isApplicable( guest )
DEBUG [http-8084-Processor24] providers.Paren.[] Oct/17 18:49:05 -
calling
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
op=OR].isApplicable()
DEBUG [http-8084-Processor24] providers.Paren.[] Oct/17 18:49:05 -
calling
[EMAIL PROTECTED],
op=NOT].isApplicable()
DEBUG [http-8084-Processor24] providers.Paren.[] Oct/17 18:49:05 -
---- [EMAIL PROTECTED],
op=NOT].isApplicable()=false
DEBUG [http-8084-Processor24] providers.Paren.[] Oct/17 18:49:05 -
---- [EMAIL PROTECTED],
op=OR].isApplicable()=false
INFO [http-8084-Processor24] dlm.FragmentDefinition.[] Oct/17
18:49:05 - ---- frg-uic-connect.isApplicable( guest )=false
Drew Wills wrote:
Tim,
Here's the code that decides whether someone is a guest or not:
*****
public boolean isGuest() {
boolean isGuest = false;
String userName = (String)getAttribute(IPerson.USERNAME);
if (userName.equals(PersonFactory.GUEST_USERNAME) &&
!m_securityContext.isAuthenticated()) {
isGuest = true;
}
return isGuest;
}
*****
So -- it looks like the user's username must match the
GUEST_USERNAME (can be specified in portal.properties, default is
'guest'), and the user must not be authenticated.
Which gives rise to an irony: if you log in as 'guest' (perhaps to
change the layout), you won't see any guest fragments.
drew wills
Timothy Carroll wrote:
thanks guys. i think i have figured out how bare-bones i can go
with the empty user; however, i cannot seem to get the
GuestUserEvaluatorFactory to resolve and display my frg-guest dlm
fragment
<dlm:fragment name='frg-guest' ownerID='guest-lo' precedence='10'>
<dlm:audience
evaluatorFactory='org.jasig.portal.layout.dlm.providers.GuestUserEvaluatorFactory'/>
</dlm:fragment>
odd, all the others work fine.
Jason Shao wrote:
On Oct 17, 2007, at 4:05 AM, Drew Wills wrote:
Timothy Carroll wrote:
when you guys talk about an empty guest user,
how "empty" is it actually... does it just have a root layout
node, or
does it need more? less?
I believe you always need to include a header and a footer.
Here's a
document that contains an example.
You may or may not need more channels in the header & footer.
I think Mark had mentioned in 2.6 DLM should be able to call
transient channels from the theme xform using something that
looked like <channel fname="login"/> -- and that this moves us
further in the direction of getting rid of the special hidden
folders.
Jason
--
Jason Shao
Application Developer
Rutgers University, Office of Instructional & Research Technology
v. 732-445-8726 | f. 732-445-5539 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
http://jay.shao.org
--
You are currently subscribed to [email protected] as: [EMAIL
PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives, see
http://www.ja-sig.org/wiki/display/JSG/uportal-dev
