[geeklog-devel] GSoC 2010 is on

Sat Apr 3 12:03:57 EDT 2010

Hi Joe,

Thanks for the detailed reply. However, the same argument is valid for
public groups isn't it? We have a unique constraint on (grp_owner,
grp_name). So nothing stops both you and me from creating two public groups
with the same name, "The New Jersey PHP User Group", for example. Socnet
still has to differentiate between the two groups when showing them to a
member of both the groups.

Other than that, I have upgraded to 1.6.1.1 and have been using it. IMHO we
can have an option for the admin to set the group owner when
creating/editing a group. Of course Socnet will set the user who creates a
group as the group owner, but the admin should be able to change the owner
by editing the group.

Will keep you posted as I delve deeper into the changes :)

Cheers,
Jakh

On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 3:54 PM, Joe Mucchiello <joe at throwingdice.com> wrote:

> That scenario should not come up. Groups are not reciprocal and they are
> not necessarily public. A user who wants to set the group permission of a
> socnet object should only see his personal groups in the drop down. Just
> because you've added me to one of the group lists you want to maintain
> doesn't mean I can see that group. The socnet plugin will need to figure out
> how to differentiate between "Jakh's Private List of People He Sends Joke
> Links To" and "The New Jersey PHP User Group". In the first case, the list
> is only used by Jakh to create Links and share them with Jakh's friends. The
> people on the list see the links but cannot examine the list since it's
> private. The second list is obviously supposed to be public and every member
> of that list should be able to set permissions of an object to include that
> list.
>
> This is why the core code stays away from user owned groups. The context of
> what the user owned groups mean is not understood by core. It is only
> understood by the socnet plugin. In my original proposal there were several
> kinds of groups and rules for inviting people into public groups and
> approval systems for groups and how reciprocal friendship works, and so on.
> None of that is in the patch. The patch contains only what is minimally
> sufficient to allow all of that stuff to be written as part of a plugin.
> Someone still has to come up with all those rules and determine how they
> will be enforced and how they will be conveyed to the user via the browser.
> None of that is core's business.
>
> As the feature request in the bug tracker explains, there is a downside to
> this. Currently there is a global in Geeklog $_GROUPS. It contains the list
> of all groups the currently logged on user is a member of. It is used by
> SEC_inGroup to determine if the current user is a member of a group. It is
> also commonly used in SQL statements of the form: "WHERE group_id in (" .
> explode(',', $_GROUPS) . ')'; to select a set of objects to which the
> current user has permission to view. That all is unchanged. The problem is
> the dropdown box created by SEC_getGroupDropdown. This function also
> attempts to use the $_GROUPS array to create a list of <option> tags for a
> <select> block. The problem is that this is not the right way to go about
> it. Just because I am in your friend list doesn't mean I should be able to
> create objects visible to all your friends or any of the other friend lists
> I'm on.
>
> So the simple solution is to force SEC_getGroupDropdown into Administration
> only duty. It only returns system groups. If you need a list of groups that
> should appear in a dropdown list with the socnet plugin's approval, the
> socnet plugin will need to provide a function that does that. My guess is
> there will be a gl_socgroup table in the database. At the moment I assume it
> would just contain grp_id and grp_type fields but I could see other fields
> being added as the socnet plugin needs control data for its groups.
>
> At 04:35 AM 4/2/2010, Jakh Daven wrote:
>
>> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001636426fe35b843d04833cdc40
>> Content-Transfer-Encoding:
>>
>>
>> Hi Joe,
>>
>> I am a would-be GSoC student participant and I am interested in taking up
>> the Socnet project. I will go through your patch, test it during the weekend
>> and try to figure out how it fits in with socnet. I have glanced through the
>> documentation in the feature request and I would like to add a few points on
>> how Socnet will handle this in my view. From the feature request page:
>>
>> Code displaying this (such as SOC_getGroupDropdown) would need to handle
>> how to display the group names intelligently.
>>
>>
>> Will the group names in the drop down be unique?. If yes, we will need to
>> get the user name from the uid and attach it to the group name (since group
>> names are not unique). For example the drop down would contain the following
>> items:
>>   * Joe Mucchiello's Friends
>>   * Jakh Daven's Co-Workers
>>   * Jakh Daven's Friends
>> Is this correct? We will need to handle user name+group name clashes
>> somehow.
>>
>> As you said, even if it does not make it into 1.7.0, it will be very
>> useful to the gsoc devs, Thanks for the patch.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Jakh
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Joe Mucchiello <<mailto:
>> joe at throwingdice.com>joe at throwingdice.com> wrote:
>> At 01:39 AM 4/2/2010, Vincent Furia wrote:
>> Only had a few minutes tonight to take a look. Have a couple comments
>> though:
>>
>> 1.  1.7.0 introduces Postgresql support, we'll need SQL updates for it as
>> well.
>>
>>
>> Yeah, I know. I can read the docs and make something up. But someone more
>> familiar with pgsql should write that. If I had been targeting 1.7.0
>> directly, I'd have created the files at a minimum. I just figured 1.7.0 is a
>> moving target and a 3-way merge with mercurial should be easier than it use
>> to be with CVS. Someone just needs to checkout from the 1.6.1 commit. Merge
>> my changes and then try to push the changes back up. (Although, I admit, for
>> me this is just my understanding of the theory behind a DVCS.)
>>
>>
>> 2.  Since your using the column grp_owner in where clauses everytime you
>> select from the group table, I think we need an index on it. I think the
>> UNIQUE INDEX in MySQL also acts as sorting index, but I don't think (but I'm
>> not sure) that a MSSQL CONSTRAINT acts as an index.
>>
>>
>> Again, I just mirrored what I saw in the mssql files. If what you say is
>> true there are potentially no indexes (other than primary key indexes) on
>> the mssql install as I see no place where a CREATE INDEX statement is
>> executed. Unfortunately I don't have anywhere to run mssql to test it out.
>> Ultimately, I wasn't worried about indexes on the database because they can
>> always be tweaked ad hoc in a worst case scenario. Besides, Geeklog is lousy
>> about indexes. If you've ever upgraded a database continuously from an early
>> version you might end up with duplicate indexes on various tables.
>>
>>
>> I'll have more time to look at it over the weekend.
>>
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>
>> P.S. You may be a bit late for 1.7.0. Dirk indicated a feature freeze
>> earlier this week and is aiming for a Beta 1.7.0 over the weekend.
>>
>>
>> I always miss the feature freeze emails. Looking back he didn't actually
>> call it a feature freeze. Just a beta this weekend. I sent him an email
>> about this yesterday that he didn't answer. So I can still hope this time I
>> made it under the wire. Technically I suppose this only needs to be part of
>> 1.7.1hg so that GSoC devs can use it.
>>
>>
>> ----
>> Joe Mucchiello
>> Throwing Dice Games
>> <http://www.throwingdice.com>http://www.throwingdice.com
>>
>>
>>
>> No virus found in this outgoing message
>> Checked by PC Tools AntiVirus (6.0.0.19 - 10.004.176).
>> <http://www.pctools.com/free-antivirus/>
>> http://www.pctools.com/free-antivirus/
>> _______________________________________________
>> geeklog-devel mailing list
>> <mailto:geeklog-devel at lists.geeklog.net>geeklog-devel at lists.geeklog.net
>>
>> http://eight.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/geeklog-devel
>>
>>
> ----
> Joe Mucchiello
> Throwing Dice Games
> http://www.throwingdice.com
>
>
> No virus found in this outgoing message
> Checked by PC Tools AntiVirus (6.0.0.19 - 10.004.176).
> http://www.pctools.com/free-antivirus/
> _______________________________________________
> geeklog-devel mailing list
> geeklog-devel at lists.geeklog.net
> http://eight.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/geeklog-devel
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://pairlist8.pair.net/pipermail/geeklog-devel/attachments/20100403/933f9207/attachment.html>