On 4. Apr, 2013, at 17:30, Olemis Lang wrote:

> On 4/4/13, Matevž Bradač <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 4. Apr, 2013, at 2:01, Olemis Lang wrote:
> [...]
>>> 
>>> I don't think it's a good idea to set empty owner by
>>> default . If not specified explicitly it should default to
>>> req.authname ... or maybe something else ...
>>> 
>>> Of course , permissions setup for new products may be customized by
>>> implementing resource listeners . Therefore the architecture will not
>>> constrain users willing to do smething else .
>> 
>> I completely agree here. I found it strange that in the default "add
>> product"
>> form (/main/products?action=new), the owner field is not even present.
>> So I think your suggestion of using the req.authname as the owner sounds
>> good.
>> 
>> In the admin add product (/main/admin/ticket/products) the owner field is
>> present
>> however, which supports your suggestion even more. For this form I'd say
>> that at
>> least a warning should be issued if no owner is specified, and perhaps the
>> owner
>> should be set to req.authname here as well.
>> 
> 
> In product admin panel (for TRAC_ADMIN users) I do think the field
> must be required . In product scope only products owned by
> req.authname user should be listed . These may be improvements related
> to #430 afaics .
> 

+1

> [...]
>>> 
>>> Also recall that there's no such thing like permission schemes for new
>>> products . That's a TODO (see #495) .
>>> ;)
>>> 
>> 
>> Then there's also #408. =)
>> 
> 
> sorry . I closed #495 as a duplicate . I guess I searched for
> 'permission schema' instead of 'permission scheme' and got nothing
> useful :-$ . I did search
> 
> <ot>
> ... so I'm hoping the matches made by BloodhoundSearch will be a bit
> fuzzy to deal with or suggest word similarities .
> </ot>

I probably wouldn't find it either, if I weren't the submitter.
Also, +1 for fuzzy/fuzzier searches, possibly with "spelling" suggestions.
I found Peter Norvig's solution[1] to be extremely useful for most purposes,
and the implementation consists of only 21 lines of code(!)

[1] - http://norvig.com/spell-correct.html

> 
> -- 
> Regards,
> 
> Olemis.

Thanks,

--
matevz

Reply via email to