Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
"be consistent"
 
PerlMonks  

Re^2: Create new [pmdev]-only section "Pmdev Discussion" (create new forum?)

by tye (Sage)
on Dec 30, 2010 at 20:38 UTC ( #879865=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re: Create new [pmdev]-only section "Pmdev Discussion"
in thread Create new [pmdev]-only section "Pmdev Discussion"

I like much of your proposal. I don't like the extra layer(s) of indirection that must be traversed every time it must be decided whether or not a user can view a node. So I'd probably actually keep the different node types for specifying different permissions, at least in the first version.

Having personally completely implemented a replacement for both of the ugly "approval" systems we still have in place (and use simultaneously) and then repeatedly failing to get it deployed, I'd actually place tackling that mess ahead of this as I expect the wide touch of the approval process will likely make for some nice roadblocks if it isn't significantly cleaned up before.

Even before that, how about just working on implementing "patch approval" so we have some hope of building on the recent momentum in site improvements by making pmdev work not quickly revert to the awful place it used to be so we might actually increase the number of active, useful members writing (and applying, testing, reverting!) patches?

- tye        

  • Comment on Re^2: Create new [pmdev]-only section "Pmdev Discussion" (create new forum?)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Create new [pmdev]-only section "Pmdev Discussion" (create new forum?)
by jdporter (Canon) on Dec 30, 2010 at 21:14 UTC
    I'd probably actually keep the different node types for specifying different permissions, at least in the first version.

    Um.... ugh. That means having a proliferation of note types (as we have already started down that slope with pmdevnote). That is entirely contrary to the whole idea of "one-click forum creation".

    Perhaps an alternative would be to have a single new note derivative which contains links to access rules (by which I mean, usergroup | accessrule | NULL). This field would get populated from the values in the forum base in the note's maintenance create.

    Even before that, how about just working on ...

    Sure, man. I just wanted to capture my thoughts here. Anybody could work on this. (I'm not the only one who thinks it's a good idea of moderately high desirability.)

    What is the sound of Windows? Is it not the sound of a wall upon which people have smashed their heads... all the way through?

      A new node type would only be required if permissions were different. I don't see this as a "proliferation". You are proposing a similar "proliferation" of new "forum type" nodes which have /more/ fields than a nodetype and would require re-implementing the permissions structure that is already nicely captured in nodetypes.

      I like the idea of not always having to add a new root node type for each "section". Granted, you were thinking mostly of new fora specifically for the sake of having different access permissions, where two extra nodetypes might be required for some sections.

      But this is such a fundamental change, that I'd approach it in phases and look at implementing a forum as you've described without simultaneously taking on fundamental changes with permissions (which need to be done very carefully because they are too easy to get wrong -- as we've done several times not too long ago).

      Anybody could work on this.

      But you are the only one who was added to gods with a mandate to work on it (patch approval).

      - tye        

        I like the idea of not always having to add a new root node type for each "section".

        But in the current architecture, a section is defined precisely by a root node type (and, in a non-fundamental way, by a superdoc to display recent posts and a posting form).

        I think, essentially, the change I'm proposing is radical enough that the developer(s) should probably work it out on a copy of the site. (which, as we know, is showstopper of a roadblock at present.)

        I just wanted to capture my thoughts here. Anybody could work on this.
        But you are the only one who was added to gods with a mandate to work on it (patch approval).

        The "this" I was referring to was the subject of this thread. My point was that someone else — if a suitably motivated devil were found — could work on this while I pursue the subject of my mandate.

        What is the sound of Windows? Is it not the sound of a wall upon which people have smashed their heads... all the way through?

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://879865]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others wandering the Monastery: (7)
As of 2020-04-08 16:11 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?
    The most amusing oxymoron is:
















    Results (45 votes). Check out past polls.

    Notices?