atom feed57 messages in org.xwiki.usersRe: [xwiki-users] [xwiki-devs] [Propo...
FromSent OnAttachments
Ecaterina ValicaMay 10, 2010 6:39 am 
Guillaume LerougeMay 10, 2010 7:01 am 
Ecaterina ValicaMay 10, 2010 7:07 am 
Thomas MortagneMay 10, 2010 8:21 am 
Ecaterina ValicaMay 13, 2010 1:57 am 
Ecaterina ValicaMay 18, 2010 2:03 am 
Guillaume LerougeMay 18, 2010 8:08 am 
Denis GervalleMay 18, 2010 8:29 am 
Ecaterina ValicaMay 19, 2010 3:23 am 
Ecaterina ValicaMay 19, 2010 3:39 am 
Denis GervalleMay 19, 2010 6:52 am 
Ecaterina ValicaMay 19, 2010 7:33 am 
Ecaterina ValicaMay 20, 2010 9:18 am 
Guillaume LerougeMay 20, 2010 9:21 am 
Ecaterina ValicaMay 21, 2010 10:51 am 
Alex BuseniusMay 21, 2010 11:42 am 
Ecaterina ValicaMay 21, 2010 10:57 pm 
Denis GervalleMay 22, 2010 1:31 am 
Ecaterina ValicaMay 26, 2010 6:48 am 
Ecaterina ValicaMay 27, 2010 12:57 am 
Denis GervalleMay 27, 2010 1:26 am 
Ecaterina ValicaMay 31, 2010 7:53 am 
Ecaterina ValicaMay 31, 2010 7:54 am 
Denis GervalleJun 1, 2010 12:03 am 
Ecaterina ValicaJun 1, 2010 3:54 am 
Ecaterina ValicaJun 3, 2010 9:09 am 
Denis GervalleJun 4, 2010 12:42 am 
Ecaterina ValicaJun 4, 2010 9:54 am 
Alex BuseniusJun 4, 2010 10:57 am 
Ecaterina ValicaJun 4, 2010 11:23 am 
Raluca StavroJun 4, 2010 11:33 am 
Raluca StavroJun 4, 2010 11:36 am 
Alex BuseniusJun 4, 2010 12:05 pm 
Denis GervalleJun 4, 2010 3:53 pm 
Ecaterina ValicaJun 7, 2010 1:22 am 
Ecaterina ValicaJun 7, 2010 1:50 am 
Denis GervalleJun 7, 2010 2:24 am 
Ecaterina ValicaJun 7, 2010 8:00 am 
Ecaterina ValicaJun 8, 2010 2:19 am 
Denis GervalleJun 8, 2010 3:46 am 
Raluca StavroJun 8, 2010 4:44 am 
Ecaterina ValicaJun 8, 2010 6:41 am 
Denis GervalleJun 8, 2010 8:14 am 
Philip BrunettiJun 8, 2010 6:54 pm 
Caleb James DeLisleJun 8, 2010 7:31 pm 
Vincent MassolJun 9, 2010 12:25 am 
Sergiu DumitriuJun 9, 2010 2:57 am 
Ecaterina ValicaJun 9, 2010 3:24 am 
Ecaterina ValicaJun 9, 2010 3:36 am 
8 later messages
Subject:Re: [xwiki-users] [xwiki-devs] [Proposal] Rights Management UI
From:Denis Gervalle (
Date:Jun 1, 2010 12:03:37 am


I probably have an issue with my browser (Chrome/Mac) but I cannot see the icons :( Anyway this seem to me nice, but I am not sure you should prevent changing rights in summary mode. I think that summary mode should allow simple right management, and for 'casual' or less knowledgeable users, this should be the only mode used. This is not only a summary, but also a simplified interface.



On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 16:54, Ecaterina Valica <> wrote:

On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 17:53, Ecaterina Valica <> wrote:

Sorry: link for Wiki is

Bug: - when clicking on "more" next to the summary, all columns should expand, not just one column at a time.

Missing: - expand/collapse all + pagination, etc

Remarks: - Summary view is good for quick scanning of the rights. Rights management (changing) and inheritance explanations are available in expanded view. - Icons presented just for: view, comment, edit, delete, admin, register, programming. Extended rights|Expand mode are represented by "..." (more)

Thanks, Caty

On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 11:26, Denis Gervalle <> wrote:

On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 09:57, Ecaterina Valica <> wrote:


I want to talk a bit about:

The inheritance is a little bit particular, since allowing a given



lower level, will deny that same right for anybody else even if this right is allowed at a higher level.

I want to know how hard this would be to be changed.

Changing this is not hard, but it will increase complexity since we will need a backward compatibility mode for existing wikis.

Another question is why this has been done in the first place? Can someone give a valid use case when this is more productive than other ways.

I really do not know, and I am curious as well.

It is very confusing and users need to do additional steps in order to give the rights they want.

I completely agree, this is poor.

I think is a problem of how the Groups are perceived. Only as a rights

mechanism or as a semantically grouping.

We should not decide this, since groups maybe synchronized from external system (ie LDAP), imposing groups for rights is not correct. By the way, groups may contains groups, but I am almost sure that this will work properly in practice.

If we use groups just to give rights than the current implementation is usable. But if you have groups, like Tech team, Design team, Marketing, Happy team ... etc in order to classify our users in other ways beside rights management, giving permission to a user is breaking all the inheritance from upper levels.

Example: Group A(Managers) has View (default allowed) at wiki level - this means that they should be allowed to view all the pages in the wiki. Group B(Tech Team) has View (explicitly denied) at spaceX level - this means they shouldn't be allowed to view this space.

But I have a person (the managerX) in Group B that is supposed to see the info in spaceX level. So the first logical move would be to give him allow at space level (having in mind that space rights are stronger that wiki rights and the view right has been overriden). But, if I give managerX view right, all the other groups (incluing Managers) will be denied for spaceX level. This means I need to know that and "repair" again all the



ALREADY set at the higher level.

This behavior is not logical for me.

It is not logical for me and I imagine many others !

A solution would be to take out managerX form Group B and leave it



Managers group. Yes, this way my problem is solved, but this means Groups are only used for Rights purposes. Group B (Tech Team) is no longer semantically compact and I can't further give this group compact tasks, etc.

Please tell if is a way to change this behavior and please have in mind XWiki 3.0, where Groups are going beyond rights management and they should be seen as collaboration mechanisms (which need to be semantical).

IMO, XWiki 3.0 should have a complete rework of the right service implementation, and breaks with the past. Since this will cause many migration issue, I am not in favor of progressive changes, and I would prefer to see a big single change that fix this, and also the current discussion on script rights.


Rights should be inherited from upper level and should affect only the

user/group where a change is made, not make some complicated implications at other levels and groups.

Thanks, Caty

On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 16:48, Ecaterina Valica <> wrote:


Did: - source of inheritance is per rights; - local source of inheritance: if the a right is allowed to anyone



the same level, it is implicitly disallowed for any others; - inheritance from upper levels / groups.

Please see if I put the rights correctly: Wiki Level:

Space Level:

Obs. Summary view + icons not done yet.

Thanks, Caty

On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 11:31, Denis Gervalle <> wrote:

Hi Caty,

This one is simpler and more easy to understand than proposal 2 (which I liked but were complex). It is your best try IMO. I agree with Caty that using icons too reduce the place taken will not allow easy



Alex proposal would help to have a summary view, which is nice to have too.

Maybe we could do both in fact. Propose a summary view (by



fit a single line per user, this view would present the common rights (V/C/E/D/A/(R/P)) using icons, and a last icon would be used to mention there is more special rights either inherited, allowed or denied.



only need to use (and think about) a short icon representation for common rights, and extended rights will be represented by a single special representation. Rows could be expanded individually or globally so if you want a more detailled information, you may reach it either for a single user or



once. Changing common rights would be allowed in collapsed mode and expanded mode, but changing special rights would only be allowed in expanded view.

If you want to keep the width even smaller, you may also colspan the user/group column over the others, using 2 rows per user, but I am not sure it will be nice. (Could this be only when horizontal space is short ?)

I really like this one because it is simple to learn without documentation and could also help learning how rights works, but there is again some inconstancies with the current implementation. Compare to



these inconsistencies may be nicely fixed and really helps understanding why the right is disallowed at any time. You can do it like this:

- the inheritance pop-up information should be at the right level in the inheritance columns. The rights are inherited and check individually, so the precise source of inheritance is per rights, not only per user or group - there is a local source of inheritance: if the a right is



anyone else at the same level, it is implicitly disallowed for any others. So the source of inheritance is the local level, implying a deny because the local level has at least a specific allow. This means than when you drag the first time a right in the allow column, all other user/group at the same level will have that right inherited deny from the current level. (For those who wonder and will check the source of the right service, yes,



potential performance improvement by immediately denying when a non-matching allow is found, currently we continue to check right at higher



more deny, this is not really clever)

With these changes, I really feel that this last proposal could be



improvement in the way rights are applied, and keeps the interface simple at the same time.



On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 07:57, Ecaterina Valica <


On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 21:42, Alex Busenius <


I like this version, it makes clear what is allowed/denied and



it takes a lot of space. What if those rights names would be



big icons and placed side by side? Like this (sorry for ASCII-art):


Unregistered users | [+V] [+C] [+R] [-D] [-A] [-P] [-CC] | | [-E]

Big Icons: We are using Silk set for our icons and this is constraining.



version 3-4 were made having rights extensibility in mind, for



like adding "captchaComment" right, or "annotate" right, or "applicationXusage" right .... so I don't think is very good if applications are gonna have to choose their custom icon to represent their



because is gonna be a mess in the UI.

There are few possible icons to choose from (in order to keep the look&feel unitary) and having the developers choose their own icon for the



extend is gonna break the UI consistency. I think is much easier, extensible and less visual cryptic to textual describe an extensible right.

Placed side by side: Version 4 takes a lot of space, yes, but the problem with side by



that is less readable (harder to scan the rights order). Also



to have a bigger area to select when you want to drag an item.

Thanks Alex for your feedback, Caty


On 05/21/2010 07:51 PM, Ecaterina Valica wrote:



- One additional column is added: "Default / Inherited



default all rights appear in this column - By using drag'n'drop items are tossed around between



"Deny rights" and "Default / Inherited Rights"

Rights Proposal 4:

Wiki Prototype:

Space Prototype:

This proposal is done by using feedback provided by Roman



Raluca Morosan. Thanks, Caty