[geeklog-devtalk] geeklog-devel digest, Vol 1 #475 - 8 msgs

[geeklog-devel-request at lists.geeklog.net]

Send geeklog-devel mailing list submissions to
	geeklog-devel at lists.geeklog.net

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.geeklog.net/listinfo/geeklog-devel
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	geeklog-devel-request at lists.geeklog.net

You can reach the person managing the list at
	geeklog-devel-admin at lists.geeklog.net

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of geeklog-devel digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: GL2 and site relationships (Simon Lord)
   2. Re: GL2 and site relationships (Vincent Furia)
   3. Re: GL2 and site relationships (Simon Lord)
   4. Re: GL2 and site relationships (Tony Bibbs)
   5. Re: GL2 and site relationships (Vincent Furia)
   6. Re: GL2 and site relationships (Dirk Haun)
   7. Re: GL2 and site relationships (Tony Bibbs)
   8. Re: GL2 and site relationships (Tony Bibbs)

--__--__--

Message: 1
From: Simon Lord <slord at marelina.com>
Subject: Re: [geeklog-devel] GL2 and site relationships
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 13:06:36 -0500
To: geeklog-devel at lists.geeklog.net
Reply-To: geeklog-devel at lists.geeklog.net

My current solution to this is to assign each dept as a GROUP.  That 
way each dept only sees stories/links etc meant for them.  It's not 
perfect, but it would be if a new *kind* of group object were created 
to categorize content into a meta-group.  This would allow us to assign 
the *meta-group* tag to users who would automatically only be able to 
read and post to their meta-group.

Some depts, such as the Documentation dept, would need to have 
permissions to search more than just within their own meta-group in 
order to gain access to information to author proper documentation.  So 
a means to allow a user/or group access to more than one meta-group 
would be cool.

Is that complex?  I think it would work swimingly across sites as well 
seeing as how users are tagged with a specific meta-group depending on 
where they sign in/sign up and thus only see data pertaining to that 
meta-group.



On Jan 5, 2005, at 12:04 PM, Tony Bibbs wrote:


> One thing missing from the current GL2 data model is the ability to 

> run multiple sites under one database.  These sites may, or may not, 

> have a relationship of some sort.  This definitely needs to be added.  

> I wanted to quickly describe this and how I am proposing to solve 

> this.

>

> Organizations, particularly businesses, would want to use a CMS like 

> GL2 allowing each entity in their table of organization to have their 

> own site.  These relationships can be in three different modes:

>

> 1) Independent.  They share the same database but have no relationship 

> between them.  As such they effectively act as their own independent 

> GL2 site

>

> 2) Peer-to-Peer.  You may have two GL2 sites with different but 

> related content.  This model would allow one site to magically 

> 'submit' items that can be included on the other site given that site 

> administrator wants it.

>

> 3) Affinities. This covers the scenario I eluded to where you have a 

> number of GL2 sites that are related to one another.  There will 

> always be a top level 'master' who can create affinities under them 

> who can control their own content but are subjected to content changes 

> the 'master' feels is appropriate to them.

>

> My first question is do we still want to support this sort of 

> functionality?  Doing so would complicate overall administration but 

> we could probably hide that complexity if, at installation, we knew 

> the admin didn't care to run more than one GL2 site in the single 

> database.

>

> --Tony

> _______________________________________________

> geeklog-devel mailing list

> geeklog-devel at lists.geeklog.net

> http://lists.geeklog.net/listinfo/geeklog-devel

>

>

Sincerely,
Simon


--__--__--

Message: 2
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 13:10:22 -0500
From: Vincent Furia <vfuria at gmail.com>
To: geeklog-devel at lists.geeklog.net
Subject: Re: [geeklog-devel] GL2 and site relationships
Reply-To: geeklog-devel at lists.geeklog.net

Simon,

If I understand what your asking, I think between groups and the ACLs
under GL2 you'll get this functionality for free (as long we keep in
mind people may want to do things this way when we're writing the rest
of the code).

-Vinny


On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 13:06:36 -0500, Simon Lord <slord at marelina.com> wrote:

> My current solution to this is to assign each dept as a GROUP.  That

> way each dept only sees stories/links etc meant for them.  It's not

> perfect, but it would be if a new *kind* of group object were created

> to categorize content into a meta-group.  This would allow us to assign

> the *meta-group* tag to users who would automatically only be able to

> read and post to their meta-group.

> 

> Some depts, such as the Documentation dept, would need to have

> permissions to search more than just within their own meta-group in

> order to gain access to information to author proper documentation.  So

> a means to allow a user/or group access to more than one meta-group

> would be cool.

> 

> Is that complex?  I think it would work swimingly across sites as well

> seeing as how users are tagged with a specific meta-group depending on

> where they sign in/sign up and thus only see data pertaining to that

> meta-group.

> 

> 

> On Jan 5, 2005, at 12:04 PM, Tony Bibbs wrote:

> 

> > One thing missing from the current GL2 data model is the ability to

> > run multiple sites under one database.  These sites may, or may not,

> > have a relationship of some sort.  This definitely needs to be added.

> > I wanted to quickly describe this and how I am proposing to solve

> > this.

> >

> > Organizations, particularly businesses, would want to use a CMS like

> > GL2 allowing each entity in their table of organization to have their

> > own site.  These relationships can be in three different modes:

> >

> > 1) Independent.  They share the same database but have no relationship

> > between them.  As such they effectively act as their own independent

> > GL2 site

> >

> > 2) Peer-to-Peer.  You may have two GL2 sites with different but

> > related content.  This model would allow one site to magically

> > 'submit' items that can be included on the other site given that site

> > administrator wants it.

> >

> > 3) Affinities. This covers the scenario I eluded to where you have a

> > number of GL2 sites that are related to one another.  There will

> > always be a top level 'master' who can create affinities under them

> > who can control their own content but are subjected to content changes

> > the 'master' feels is appropriate to them.

> >

> > My first question is do we still want to support this sort of

> > functionality?  Doing so would complicate overall administration but

> > we could probably hide that complexity if, at installation, we knew

> > the admin didn't care to run more than one GL2 site in the single

> > database.

> >

> > --Tony

> > _______________________________________________

> > geeklog-devel mailing list

> > geeklog-devel at lists.geeklog.net

> > http://lists.geeklog.net/listinfo/geeklog-devel

> >

> >

> Sincerely,

> Simon

> 

> _______________________________________________

> geeklog-devel mailing list

> geeklog-devel at lists.geeklog.net

> http://lists.geeklog.net/listinfo/geeklog-devel

>


--__--__--

Message: 3
From: Simon Lord <slord at marelina.com>
Subject: Re: [geeklog-devel] GL2 and site relationships
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 13:18:23 -0500
To: geeklog-devel at lists.geeklog.net
Reply-To: geeklog-devel at lists.geeklog.net

Ok, so what's the underlying question Tony is asking if we can simulate 
separate depts under GL2?

If we can assign a theme to a meta-group then in theory these 
meta-groups would look like independent sites.  No?


On Jan 5, 2005, at 1:10 PM, Vincent Furia wrote:


> Simon,

>

> If I understand what your asking, I think between groups and the ACLs

> under GL2 you'll get this functionality for free (as long we keep in

> mind people may want to do things this way when we're writing the rest

> of the code).

>

> -Vinny

>

>

> On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 13:06:36 -0500, Simon Lord <slord at marelina.com> 

> wrote:

>> My current solution to this is to assign each dept as a GROUP.  That

>> way each dept only sees stories/links etc meant for them.  It's not

>> perfect, but it would be if a new *kind* of group object were created

>> to categorize content into a meta-group.  This would allow us to 

>> assign

>> the *meta-group* tag to users who would automatically only be able to

>> read and post to their meta-group.

>>

>> Some depts, such as the Documentation dept, would need to have

>> permissions to search more than just within their own meta-group in

>> order to gain access to information to author proper documentation.  

>> So

>> a means to allow a user/or group access to more than one meta-group

>> would be cool.

>>

>> Is that complex?  I think it would work swimingly across sites as well

>> seeing as how users are tagged with a specific meta-group depending on

>> where they sign in/sign up and thus only see data pertaining to that

>> meta-group.

>>

>>

>> On Jan 5, 2005, at 12:04 PM, Tony Bibbs wrote:

>>

>>> One thing missing from the current GL2 data model is the ability to

>>> run multiple sites under one database.  These sites may, or may not,

>>> have a relationship of some sort.  This definitely needs to be added.

>>> I wanted to quickly describe this and how I am proposing to solve

>>> this.

>>>

>>> Organizations, particularly businesses, would want to use a CMS like

>>> GL2 allowing each entity in their table of organization to have their

>>> own site.  These relationships can be in three different modes:

>>>

>>> 1) Independent.  They share the same database but have no 

>>> relationship

>>> between them.  As such they effectively act as their own independent

>>> GL2 site

>>>

>>> 2) Peer-to-Peer.  You may have two GL2 sites with different but

>>> related content.  This model would allow one site to magically

>>> 'submit' items that can be included on the other site given that site

>>> administrator wants it.

>>>

>>> 3) Affinities. This covers the scenario I eluded to where you have a

>>> number of GL2 sites that are related to one another.  There will

>>> always be a top level 'master' who can create affinities under them

>>> who can control their own content but are subjected to content 

>>> changes

>>> the 'master' feels is appropriate to them.

>>>

>>> My first question is do we still want to support this sort of

>>> functionality?  Doing so would complicate overall administration but

>>> we could probably hide that complexity if, at installation, we knew

>>> the admin didn't care to run more than one GL2 site in the single

>>> database.

>>>

>>> --Tony

>>> _______________________________________________

>>> geeklog-devel mailing list

>>> geeklog-devel at lists.geeklog.net

>>> http://lists.geeklog.net/listinfo/geeklog-devel

>>>

>>>

>> Sincerely,

>> Simon

>>

>> _______________________________________________

>> geeklog-devel mailing list

>> geeklog-devel at lists.geeklog.net

>> http://lists.geeklog.net/listinfo/geeklog-devel

>>

> _______________________________________________

> geeklog-devel mailing list

> geeklog-devel at lists.geeklog.net

> http://lists.geeklog.net/listinfo/geeklog-devel

>

>

Sincerely,
Simon


--__--__--

Message: 4
Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 12:54:13 -0600
From: Tony Bibbs <tony at tonybibbs.com>
To: geeklog-devel at lists.geeklog.net
Subject: Re: [geeklog-devel] GL2 and site relationships
Reply-To: geeklog-devel at lists.geeklog.net

Let me try explaining this another way.

The first relationship would be independent.  In 1.3.x there is no way 
to do this.  If you want two unrelated sites running under the same 
database...forget about it.  In this the sites are truly separate with 
their own users, their own groups, own content.

The second relationship, peer-to-peer, might be a suite of on line 
publications.  For example purposes, they might all be computing 
publications with one specializing in Programming and the other in, say, 
Networking and Security.   Each would have their own  sets of groups, 
permissions, etc.  However the admins can pick and choose what content 
they are willing to share with their affiliate sites.  Thus the 
Programming site could 'listen' to the LDAP topic on the networking and 
security site so that when, for example, a story submission on LDAP was 
made the Programming site would get it as well.

The last, and more complicated is the affinity relationship.  This 
imposes a hierarchy where the parent site admin can control content 
downstream.  So, for example, take a large company like Honeywell.  
Honeywell's HQ would have their own site.  Each regional division would 
have their own Gl2 site under the Honeywell umbrella.  The look and feel 
can even be drastically different by the content comes two sources, the 
HQ site and any content generated at the regional level.

Not the greatest example but does that make more sense?

--Tony

Simon Lord wrote:


> Ok, so what's the underlying question Tony is asking if we can 

> simulate separate depts under GL2?

>

> If we can assign a theme to a meta-group then in theory these 

> meta-groups would look like independent sites.  No?

>

>

> On Jan 5, 2005, at 1:10 PM, Vincent Furia wrote:

>

>> Simon,

>>

>> If I understand what your asking, I think between groups and the ACLs

>> under GL2 you'll get this functionality for free (as long we keep in

>> mind people may want to do things this way when we're writing the rest

>> of the code).

>>

>> -Vinny

>>

>>

>> On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 13:06:36 -0500, Simon Lord <slord at marelina.com> 

>> wrote:

>>

>>> My current solution to this is to assign each dept as a GROUP.  That

>>> way each dept only sees stories/links etc meant for them.  It's not

>>> perfect, but it would be if a new *kind* of group object were created

>>> to categorize content into a meta-group.  This would allow us to assign

>>> the *meta-group* tag to users who would automatically only be able to

>>> read and post to their meta-group.

>>>

>>> Some depts, such as the Documentation dept, would need to have

>>> permissions to search more than just within their own meta-group in

>>> order to gain access to information to author proper documentation.  So

>>> a means to allow a user/or group access to more than one meta-group

>>> would be cool.

>>>

>>> Is that complex?  I think it would work swimingly across sites as well

>>> seeing as how users are tagged with a specific meta-group depending on

>>> where they sign in/sign up and thus only see data pertaining to that

>>> meta-group.

>>>

>>>

>>> On Jan 5, 2005, at 12:04 PM, Tony Bibbs wrote:

>>>

>>>> One thing missing from the current GL2 data model is the ability to

>>>> run multiple sites under one database.  These sites may, or may not,

>>>> have a relationship of some sort.  This definitely needs to be added.

>>>> I wanted to quickly describe this and how I am proposing to solve

>>>> this.

>>>>

>>>> Organizations, particularly businesses, would want to use a CMS like

>>>> GL2 allowing each entity in their table of organization to have their

>>>> own site.  These relationships can be in three different modes:

>>>>

>>>> 1) Independent.  They share the same database but have no relationship

>>>> between them.  As such they effectively act as their own independent

>>>> GL2 site

>>>>

>>>> 2) Peer-to-Peer.  You may have two GL2 sites with different but

>>>> related content.  This model would allow one site to magically

>>>> 'submit' items that can be included on the other site given that site

>>>> administrator wants it.

>>>>

>>>> 3) Affinities. This covers the scenario I eluded to where you have a

>>>> number of GL2 sites that are related to one another.  There will

>>>> always be a top level 'master' who can create affinities under them

>>>> who can control their own content but are subjected to content changes

>>>> the 'master' feels is appropriate to them.

>>>>

>>>> My first question is do we still want to support this sort of

>>>> functionality?  Doing so would complicate overall administration but

>>>> we could probably hide that complexity if, at installation, we knew

>>>> the admin didn't care to run more than one GL2 site in the single

>>>> database.

>>>>

>>>> --Tony

>>>> _______________________________________________

>>>> geeklog-devel mailing list

>>>> geeklog-devel at lists.geeklog.net

>>>> http://lists.geeklog.net/listinfo/geeklog-devel

>>>>

>>>>

>>> Sincerely,

>>> Simon

>>>

>>> _______________________________________________

>>> geeklog-devel mailing list

>>> geeklog-devel at lists.geeklog.net

>>> http://lists.geeklog.net/listinfo/geeklog-devel

>>>

>> _______________________________________________

>> geeklog-devel mailing list

>> geeklog-devel at lists.geeklog.net

>> http://lists.geeklog.net/listinfo/geeklog-devel

>>

>>

> Sincerely,

> Simon

>

> _______________________________________________

> geeklog-devel mailing list

> geeklog-devel at lists.geeklog.net

> http://lists.geeklog.net/listinfo/geeklog-devel




--__--__--

Message: 5
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 14:10:34 -0500
From: Vincent Furia <vfuria at gmail.com>
To: geeklog-devel at lists.geeklog.net
Subject: Re: [geeklog-devel] GL2 and site relationships
Reply-To: geeklog-devel at lists.geeklog.net

On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 12:54:13 -0600, Tony Bibbs <tony at tonybibbs.com> wrote:

> Let me try explaining this another way.

> 

> The first relationship would be independent.  In 1.3.x there is no way

> to do this.  If you want two unrelated sites running under the same

> database...forget about it.  In this the sites are truly separate with

> their own users, their own groups, own content.

>

I thought this could be done in 1.3.x by changing the table prefix? 
Are you talking independent sites sharing the same tables?  I don't
think that would be a good idea.
 
I know one requested thing not currently supported  in 1.3.x is to use
a single GL installation to run multiple sites with independent
databases (different physical databases or different table prefixes). 
I can see how this would make an admins life much easier when
upgrading GL or installing plugins (which could be installed on all
the sites, but enabled per site)...


> The second relationship, peer-to-peer, might be a suite of on line

> publications.  For example purposes, they might all be computing

> publications with one specializing in Programming and the other in, say,

> Networking and Security.   Each would have their own  sets of groups,

> permissions, etc.  However the admins can pick and choose what content

> they are willing to share with their affiliate sites.  Thus the

> Programming site could 'listen' to the LDAP topic on the networking and

> security site so that when, for example, a story submission on LDAP was

> made the Programming site would get it as well.

>

I think this could be best accomplished by a Web Application plugin
that would allow "items" to be cross submitted to several sites.  Such
a system wouldn't even depend on the sites being on the same server. 
While implementing this may be a little difficult, as there are many
complexities involved, I think implementing this later rather than
sooner would be OK.  Such a plugin could eventually give the ability
to submit items (and do other tasks?) through interfaces besides the
web.
 

> The last, and more complicated is the affinity relationship.  This

> imposes a hierarchy where the parent site admin can control content

> downstream.  So, for example, take a large company like Honeywell.

> Honeywell's HQ would have their own site.  Each regional division would

> have their own Gl2 site under the Honeywell umbrella.  The look and feel

> can even be drastically different by the content comes two sources, the

> HQ site and any content generated at the regional level.

> 

If we can implement giving different groups different default themes
(and even different themes available based upon group/userid [ACLs?]),
then I think this can be implemented like Simon described as a single
site with items being assigned to whichever groups are applicable. 
Admins could be given permissions to post/edit on a per category
basis.

-Vinny

--__--__--

Message: 6
From: "Dirk Haun" <dirk at haun-online.de>
To: <geeklog-devel at lists.geeklog.net>
Subject: Re: [geeklog-devel] GL2 and site relationships
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 20:22:56 +0100
Organization: Terra Software Systems
Reply-To: geeklog-devel at lists.geeklog.net

Vinny wrote:


>I know one requested thing not currently supported  in 1.3.x is to use

>a single GL installation to run multiple sites with independent

>databases


There's a hack for this in the FAQ, but it's not officially supported, yes.



>Are you talking independent sites sharing the same tables?  I don't

>think that would be a good idea.


A few people wanted to share their user base across several sites, so
that users only had to register with one site, but get access to several
sites at once.

This should also work in 1.3.x, in theory, if you change lib-database.php
such that all user-related tables exist only once (e.g. without a prefix,
while the other tables keep their prefix).

There's a forum thread on gl.net somewhere where I suggested to try this
to someone who was willing to experiment. Haven't had a definitive
answer, though.

Anyway, what I was trying to say is that there seems to be demand for
both approaches.

bye, Dirk


-- 
http://www.haun-online.de/
http://www.tinyweb.de/


--__--__--

Message: 7
Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 13:50:15 -0600
From: Tony Bibbs <tony at tonybibbs.com>
To: geeklog-devel at lists.geeklog.net
Subject: Re: [geeklog-devel] GL2 and site relationships
Reply-To: geeklog-devel at lists.geeklog.net

Vincent Furia wrote:


>On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 12:54:13 -0600, Tony Bibbs <tony at tonybibbs.com> wrote:

>  

>

>>Let me try explaining this another way.

>>

>>The first relationship would be independent.  In 1.3.x there is no way

>>to do this.  If you want two unrelated sites running under the same

>>database...forget about it.  In this the sites are truly separate with

>>their own users, their own groups, own content.

>>

>>    

>>

>I thought this could be done in 1.3.x by changing the table prefix? 

>Are you talking independent sites sharing the same tables?  

>

Correct.


>I don't

>think that would be a good idea.

>  

>

Depends on the scenario.  Take, for example, a company wanting to do 
cobranded stuff...where basically two sites share basic features but are 
wrapped in their own look and feels.  The Insurance Industry would be a 
good example of this.  I'm not advocating this, I'm simply saying it was 
something that I have noted as being a requirement and if we still want 
to support this notion it would need to happen sooner than later given 
the impact it would have on the data model.


> 

>I know one requested thing not currently supported  in 1.3.x is to use

>a single GL installation to run multiple sites with independent

>databases (different physical databases or different table prefixes). 

>I can see how this would make an admins life much easier when

>upgrading GL or installing plugins (which could be installed on all

>the sites, but enabled per site)...

>  

>

I agree with you on this.  Definitely worth it.


>I think this could be best accomplished by a Web Application plugin

>that would allow "items" to be cross submitted to several sites.  Such

>a system wouldn't even depend on the sites being on the same server. 

>While implementing this may be a little difficult, as there are many

>complexities involved, I think implementing this later rather than

>sooner would be OK.  Such a plugin could eventually give the ability

>to submit items (and do other tasks?) through interfaces besides the

>web.

>  

>

Blah, maybe we just web service this stuff that way we don't care

--Tony


--__--__--

Message: 8
Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 13:55:14 -0600
From: Tony Bibbs <tony at tonybibbs.com>
To: geeklog-devel at lists.geeklog.net
Subject: Re: [geeklog-devel] GL2 and site relationships
Reply-To: geeklog-devel at lists.geeklog.net

In gl2 we can handle the ability to share user bases across sites by 
simply implementing an account manager to do this.   As you might guess, 
the entire log in process is isolated so that it can be easily 
extended/modified to suit the needs of a particular site.  You could do 
a simple webservice call to have one GL site remotely authenticate to 
another GL site or use the same method for doing it local (though it 
would be unneeded HTTP overhead).

--Tony


>A few people wanted to share their user base across several sites, so

>that users only had to register with one site, but get access to several

>sites at once.

>

>This should also work in 1.3.x, in theory, if you change lib-database.php

>such that all user-related tables exist only once (e.g. without a prefix,

>while the other tables keep their prefix).

>

>There's a forum thread on gl.net somewhere where I suggested to try this

>to someone who was willing to experiment. Haven't had a definitive

>answer, though.

>

>Anyway, what I was trying to say is that there seems to be demand for

>both approaches.

>

>bye, Dirk

>

>

>  

>




--__--__--

_______________________________________________
geeklog-devel mailing list
geeklog-devel at lists.geeklog.net
http://lists.geeklog.net/listinfo/geeklog-devel


End of geeklog-devel Digest