Mailing-List: contact dev-help@manifoldcf.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@manifoldcf.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CALUFAGCcG04SGgm20yJgU7qOwa8SUtdRwdXcOrF=6aU4wkWD=g@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAEawRSarYPnisvT3oWE_8OK5ZQGkjY62upz28uPZbF6kfHfDTQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANW0eBdQO-snBhNMg0KTefHT7VOPTnFMxBvePww3i6bWnmGJDw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEawRSZOQPrTd5HMxjye=Lbd0oomjf5FUoKUP4-O4HcbjnNnsA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALUFAGCcG04SGgm20yJgU7qOwa8SUtdRwdXcOrF=6aU4wkWD=g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 09:54:45 +0200
Message-ID: 
 <CAEawRSaor85HsarwqoKawR1+RmeAoNwYgAzufgms8kEQPUx=cQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [GSoC] Confluence Authority Connector
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Antonio_David_P=C3=A9rez_Morales?= <adperezmorales@gmail.com>
To: dev@manifoldcf.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0118468449e1af051a94cd0a

--089e0118468449e1af051a94cd0a
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Karl

Thanks for your response.

No, I'm not using document components, so I will change the call to
checkDocumentNeedsReindexing.

Only for curiosity, do you have any example showing how to use document
components with the RepositoryDocument model used in Manifold?

Regards

2015-07-11 1:19 GMT+02:00 Karl Wright <daddywri@gmail.com>:

> bq. Karl one question about repository connector document retainment. I'm
> using
> the activities.retainAllComponentDocument(docId) method of IProcessActivi=
ty
> to retain the document and avoid to be reindexed.
>
> Hi Antonio,
>
> checkDocumentNeedsReindexing() is the standard way of determining whether=
 a
> document needs to be reindexed or not.  You can follow the template prese=
nt
> in multiple other connectors that use this method.
>
> retainAllComponentDocuments() is basically a shorthand way of determining
> the disposition of document components.  I don't believe you even use
> document components in the confluence connector, although I could be wron=
g
> about that?  In general, if your connector doesn't do anything with
> components at all, you will not need to call this method.
>
> Thanks,
> Karl
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Antonio David P=C3=A9rez Morales <
> adperezmorales@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi devs
> >
> > Continuing with the work, I have developed a first version of the
> > Confluence Authority connector aligned with the ACLs used by the
> Confluence
> > Repository Connector.
> > I have fixed and improved some parts in the repository connector and
> > committed the code and also I have updated the Jira issue [1] to keep
> track
> > of the new additions.
> > Both branches have been merged into master and I have created a new
> develop
> > branch [2] from it, so further improvements and fixes can be done from
> this
> > branch and then merged into master.
> > Right now, the connectors are in different maven modules and maybe in t=
he
> > future I can merge into one single maven project without modules, so th=
at
> > with one jar file we will have both connectors ready to be used in
> > Manifold.
> > As of now, I will work in the Authority connector improvements and test=
s
> > and also I will do all the things Rafa (or you guys) can report regardi=
ng
> > the functionality of the connectors.
> >
> > Karl one question about repository connector document retainment. I'm
> using
> > the activities.retainAllComponentDocument(docId) method of
> IProcessActivity
> > to retain the document and avoid to be reindexed.
> > Rafa, while checking and reviewing the code, noticed that other
> connectors
> > are using the checkDocumentNeedsReindexing(documentIdentifier,
> > newVersionString) method also from IProcessActivity. I checked the code
> > from both methods and internally they act differently. Is it fine to us=
e
> > the retainAllComponentDocument or it is better to switch to
> > checkDocumentNeedsReindexing one?
> >
> > As always, if you have suggestions about improvements or more things
> which
> > can be done for these connectors, please let me know.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CONNECTORS-1161
> > [2]
> >
> >
> https://github.com/adperezmorales/confluence-manifold-connector/tree/deve=
lop
> >
> >
> > 2015-07-09 17:17 GMT+02:00 Rafa Haro <rharo@apache.org>:
> >
> > > Hi Antonio,
> > >
> > > Thanks for the new update. Let me make some comments inline:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 6:31 PM, Antonio David P=C3=A9rez Morales <
> > > adperezmorales@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi devs
> > > >
> > > > After the midterm, I continue with the proposed work and I already
> > > started
> > > > to work on the second part of the project, which is the development
> of
> > an
> > > > Authority Connector for Confluence.
> > > >
> > > > I have created a new branch [1] for that in my GitHub account and I
> > > already
> > > > committed the basic structure of the connector along with the code
> > > related
> > > > to Confluence instance configuration. After that I will develop the
> > > proper
> > > > strategy to get the ACLs for the user as stated in the proposal.
> > > >
> > > > For this case, I have been evaluating the two scenarios contained i=
n
> > the
> > > > proposal and I will start developing the space-based permissions
> which
> > > > requires no customizations of Confluence instance (coarse grain).
> > > >
> > > > I made some tests with Confluence APIs trying to go more fine-grain
> > using
> > > > the user groups but there is not endpoint method to get the groups
> that
> > > can
> > > > view a specific page. So in the end, I think the space-based
> permission
> > > is
> > > > a good solution, because implementing a Confluence plugin for that =
to
> > > cover
> > > > some very specific use cases I think most people won't be willing t=
o
> > > patch
> > > > Confluence only for those specific use cases (for example where a
> > person
> > > is
> > > > not allowed to view a space but it is allowed to view a single page
> in
> > > that
> > > > space).
> > > >
> > >
> > > Let's focus right now on permissions at space level. As you said, to
> > patch
> > > confluence API is not  a good solution, specially for those using it =
in
> > the
> > > Cloud. If in the future they extend the API with more fine grained
> > > permissions approach, we can always update later the connector.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I have also updated the README file putting a guide to configure bo=
th
> > > > connectors using screenshots about configuration tabs for the
> > connectors.
> > > > I'm using embedded images (using Data URIs syntax for images) but i=
t
> > > seems
> > > > they are not supported by GitHub in the README (although they are i=
n
> > the
> > > > code, and other Markdown viewers can show them).
> > > >
> > >
> > > Ok, thanks!
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > The connectors are in separated branches until I merge them into
> > master.
> > > >
> > > > Moreover, I have been talking and reviewing with Rafa through Skype
> the
> > > > current work, and we have agreed to track all the things also in th=
e
> > Jira
> > > > issue (apart from these mails), so I will put the configuration
> > > screenshots
> > > > there and the links to the GitHub repositories.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Perfect!. Let me know when we can start testing the Authority connect=
or
> > > too. My intention is to test the whole connector in a real environmen=
t
> > > extensively sometime before the pencil downs looking for possible bug=
s,
> > > additions and so on.
> > >
> > > Well done so far!
> > > Cheers,
> > > Rafa
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Comments and suggestions are more than welcome as always.
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > >
> > > > --------
> > > >
> > > > [1]
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/adperezmorales/confluence-manifold-connector/tree/feat=
ure/authority-connector
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

--089e0118468449e1af051a94cd0a--