new thread in town ... since it seems we have gone beyond initial subject ;)
On 8/10/12, Gary Martin <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. >>> > I spent a few minutes trying to find some docs ( http://sourceforge.net/p/allura/wiki/browse_pages/ ) about Allura , it's architecture and other characteristics in order to know more about it . All this in order to figure out what could be done (even if not started right away ;) . Result : I could not find much . So I ask ... Q: - Allura API docs (architecture specification , ... or something alike) are available somewhere ? >> 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. > ok > 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. +1 [...] -- Regards, Olemis. Blog ES: http://simelo-es.blogspot.com/ Blog EN: http://simelo-en.blogspot.com/ Featured article:
