On 10/08/12 21:05, Olemis Lang wrote:
Hehe... actually, I've considered raising the idea of plugging BH into
>>>Allura. Guess this is a good time to do just that:-)
>>>
>>>Cheers,
>>>-g
>>>
>>
>>Certainly a very interesting idea. Would this be considered consistent
>>with Allura's plans though?
>>
>
>A key part of Allura's architecture is the pluggability of "tools". A
>standalone BloodHound tool for Allura could be developed without
>affecting the Allura platform at all.
>
>That said, a lot of the benefit of Allura is in using the core models
>which would give you unified searching, permissions, cross-linking
>between tools, etc. So you couldn't reap those benefits without a lot
>of customization to BloodHound.
>
>
AFAICS something in our schedule related to this may be #142 [1]_ , isn't it ?
.. [1] #142 Product-specific permissions
(https://issues.apache.org/bloodhound/ticket/142)
I don't think that is strictly related as that is about internal
permissions.
Although it will take a bit of investigation, I don't see a particular
problem with Bloodhound providing a plugin to tap into permissions,
another search mechanism and so on. I am not sure how long it will be
before we can turn our attention to this at the moment, but it is very
good to know that interoperability is a possibility.
Cheers,
Gary
