|Vincent Massol||Aug 2, 2011 10:05 am|
|Caleb James DeLisle||Aug 2, 2011 10:36 am|
|Guillaume Lerouge||Aug 2, 2011 2:15 pm|
|Raluca Stavro||Aug 3, 2011 1:03 am|
|Jerome Velociter||Aug 3, 2011 1:07 am|
|Marius Dumitru Florea||Aug 3, 2011 1:55 am|
|Denis Gervalle||Aug 3, 2011 2:19 am|
|Vincent Massol||Aug 3, 2011 2:39 am|
|Denis Gervalle||Aug 3, 2011 4:07 am|
|Vincent Massol||Aug 3, 2011 4:20 am|
|Guillaume Lerouge||Aug 3, 2011 5:03 am|
|Ecaterina Moraru (Valica)||Aug 3, 2011 7:51 am|
|Denis Gervalle||Aug 3, 2011 7:58 am|
|Thomas Mortagne||Aug 3, 2011 8:25 am|
|Raluca Stavro||Aug 4, 2011 5:02 am|
|Subject:||Re: [xwiki-devs] [Proposal] Technical Spaces + Application Spaces|
|From:||Denis Gervalle (dg...@softec.lu)|
|Date:||Aug 3, 2011 7:58:34 am|
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 13:21, Vincent Massol <vinc...@massol.net> wrote:
On Aug 3, 2011, at 1:08 PM, Denis Gervalle wrote:
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 11:39, Vincent Massol <vinc...@massol.net> wrote:
On Aug 3, 2011, at 11:19 AM, Denis Gervalle wrote:
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.
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.
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.
What do others think? Do we need the ability to hide spaces for advanced users?
Your idea seams to me interesting but will probably fall short or be misused on the long term...
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 19:05, Vincent Massol <vinc...@massol.net> wrote:
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
list of all spaces with 2 checkboxes for each space listed). This
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...".
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
-- Denis Gervalle SOFTEC sa - CEO eGuilde sarl - CTO